An Interview with Munro Neville
Professor Munro Neville officially retires from the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research this year after 30 years with the Institute. Professor Neville’s contributions to international cancer research, and the LICR in particular, have been profound. Within LICR, Munro has held the positions of Branch Director (the first LICR Branch, located in Sutton, UK), Scientific and Medical Administrator (which encompassed several separate Offices including Academic Review and Intellectual Property), Director of the Office of Intellectual Property (which he created), and LICR Associate Director. Here he reminisces about LICR and his own role in its history with Dr. Sarah White (Director, Office of Communications).
SW: Munro, one of the first things people notice when they meet you is your accent. Where do you hail from originally?
AMN: Well my accent’s not so broad anymore, you know. In fact I believe I have lost my Scottish brogue. It used to be a lot thicker than what it is now! I’m from Glasgow in Scotland, and I did most of my education there, apart from a stint at Harvard University in the USA. But I got my medical degree and my Ph.D. at the University of Glasgow. Did you know, that when I first went to London I was actually told I should have elocution lessons? Can you believe it!
So you have an M.D. and a D.Sc. and you are also a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists?
Afraid so. The postgraduate degrees and qualifications are needed in the UK system.
So let’s start with your history with LICR, how did you first come to hear of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research? You were working as a pathologist at the time?
If you want me to talk about my history with the Institute we could be here for a very long time! But OK, when I first heard about the Ludwig, I was Professor of Experimental Pathology at the University of London, and an Honorary Consultant Pathologist at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London. I knew Lloyd Old before I even heard of the Ludwig. He and I had discussed, over a pie and a pint up at the pub, several science issues including the role of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as a tumor marker and antibodies to it in the diagnosis and monitoring of cancer, also the etiology of cancer cachexia for which we had developed an animal model. I was interested in tumor markers and the use of antibodies for diagnostics at the time. The funny thing is that the last thing I wanted to do was join the Institute. I had a five year MRC Unit Program for the study of ‘Humans and Cancer’ from (19)70-75 and it had just been renewed for another five years, and that was the program that the Institute took over. I was very happy with what I had at the time!
But you were persuaded to became Director of the Sutton Branch which was located at the Institute for Cancer Research in Sutton, England, correct?
That’s right. It was the first LICR Branch, and it opened in April 1975 and closed in 1985. When the Branch opened, Mike O’Hare, Ed Nice and I were world-recognized leaders in steroid and protein analytical HPLC. Mike is now Professor of Biology at UCL and associated with the UCL Branch and Ed is at the Melbourne Branch, so the team is still around.
You then became the Scientific and Medical Research Administrator for a few years?
Hard to believe now that one administrator was sufficient, but at the time we had far fewer staff, an embryonic intellectual property program and so very limited commercial interactions, and we had just started the clinical trials program. Mind you, we’ve got a remarkably small administration for our size even now. And then, as we got bigger, I became Director of the Office of Intellectual Property in, oh, 1991 I think, and got a more focussed portfolio, though it still included the Annual Report, the Scientific Committee, Branch visits and frequent New York visits!
What do you think is so special about being part of the LICR?
A lot of other people will say it is funding, but I wouldn’t say that, actually, although it is at the foundation. I think it has been the opportunity that Dr. Old has provided, with patience and support, so that staff have been allowed time to establish projects with long-term aims. I think that any valuable research project has two five year processes; five years to initiate, five years to establish and then you get results. The second advantage is the Institute’s globality and thus access, through the Institute, to so many facets of medicine and science. Access to top-quality advice and collaborators has always been, not just encouraged, but actually enabled, where possible, by the Administration.
The opportunity to travel is so, so, so important. The Inter-Branch Collaboration Fund (85-90) was specifically for travel between Branches. For example, the Group Leaders from Sao Paulo came to Sutton for a week and learn techniques and talk about their science. I set up the same system with the Royal College of Pathologists; it is used to this day.
And the disadvantage of being part of the LICR?
[Laughs] Well now you’re going to get me in trouble! No, I think the biggest challenges for the staff are probably the flip-sides of the advantages. Because you do have the chance to focus on long-term research without having to be involved in the grant process, we tend to have our people leaving the Branches with no track record in grant writing, and that can, and has, hurt their job prospects. But that should be in the past now that everyone is encouraged to obtain some external funding from philanthropy, government and industry - each a form of peer review!
What current areas of research within LICR really excite you at the moment?
The Institute has made many valuable observations - human tumor antigens, cytokines, growth factors, their receptors and their methods of signalling. However, as you well know, I think that the work happening in the Angiogenesis Program is outstanding, just outstanding. We are among the world leaders in this field of research, there’s no doubt about that. The clinical vaccine studies, I believe, are poised to become one of the most important Institute contributions.
What are you most proud of from your influence?
Mentoring the young scientists and clinicians. No doubt about that at all. Bringing the young ones on and giving them freedom to become successful and, you know, then trying to hide my jealousy when they do so well [laughing].