By Peter J. O’Dwyer, MD (left)
and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD

Over the last several months, we have been hard at work preparing the application for our NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) Grant, a major source of support for the Group, and one for which we must recompete every six years. We are happy to report that the application was submitted in late February. This exercise reminds us of the importance of assessing our accomplishments and reflecting on the successes attained by our exceptional members. ECOG-ACRIN continues to make significant strides in cancer research and treatment through its innovative and multidisciplinary approach. In recent years, we have led advances in precision medicine, immuno-oncology, and de-intensification of therapy. We look forward to continuing our work developing scientifically important trials and ensuring enrollment opportunities across various cancer types, including those that are especially rare. Looking ahead, with a strong focus on data science and real-world evidence, we will further explore new technologies, study designs, and trial-conduct methodologies to improve cancer care. Thank you to everyone who contributed to a successful grant submission!  A shout-out here to all who contributed writing to the application, and especially to the reviewers who attended several in-person meetings and read the texts carefully and constructively: Al Benson, Paul Catalano, Keith Flaherty, Dave Mankoff, Suresh Ramalingam, Dan Barboriak, Jon Steingrimsson, Bruce Giantonio, Bob Gray, Jim Ford, Larry Shulman, and Jonathan McConathy. The grant was better for this input. Next on the horizon: the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Grant, due sometime this summer. We’ll be asking for help once more.

Preparations are underway for our Spring 2025 Group Meeting in Tampa, taking place Tuesday, May 13-Thursday, May 15 (note the shift from our former Wednesday-Friday schedule). The Comis Translational Science Symposium is sure to be a highlight, so mark your calendar for Tuesday, May 13 from 3:00-5:00 pm. The session will feature a series of expert talks on minimal residual disease (MRD), focused on technology, clinical trial designs, and utility, followed by a panel discussion. As with previous symposia, the aim is to inspire ideas for discussion within ECOG-ACRIN’s various committees, and to prompt the next generation of key trials in this area. We also urge you to add a calendar placeholder for the General Session on Wednesday, May 14 from 5:30-7:30 pm. As regular attendees know, this session features discussions of high-priority issues in cancer research and previews of presentations intended for national meetings. There is ample time for discussion with presenters and networking afterwards during the Reception, at which substantial refreshments are available. Please do not skip this important gathering.

Of course, part of the attraction of the Reception is dialogue about the issues of the day—lots to talk about here, folks!  As it concerns us and our scientific and clinical activities, we have numerous examples of mistrust of science, doubts that are amplified and intensified in our current communications environment. The president of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Marcia McNutt, addressed this mistrust in a November editorial in Science.

“As the scientific community continues to [serve the nation] now, it must take a critical look at what responsibility it bears in science becoming politically contentious, and how scientists can rebuild public trust.” 

In the piece, she urges communication—with elected representatives as well as with neighbors and friends. She emphasizes that science is neither red nor blue, “that science, at its most basic, is apolitical.” It is interesting to us that critics who are skeptical of science are much less skeptical than other scientists of new findings that contradict received wisdom. Where the cultures separate is in the response to such challenges. Scientists conduct research to disprove those new findings; if they are unsuccessful, they accept the findings as progress.

Dr. McNutt also emphasizes what science is not. If there are two contradictory publicly-supported actions, science can predict the likely outcomes of each. What it cannot do is choose between them. Science informs, but it does not choose policy. She concludes by pointing out that building trust will require more active listening to affected communities, such as those represented by our patients. “At the same time, the scientific community must fight scientific mis- and disinformation as though lives depended on truth and trust, because they do,” she asserts. Let’s do our part to return science to its historical role of providing the data, the models, and the predictions that can guide wise decisions by the community.

Read the March 2025 issue here.