
|
Armed with energy, enthusiasm,
a love of the Brady — where, trained by legendary scientist Don
Coffey, he launched his own impressive career — and a host of questions
about prostate cancer that he wants answered, Robert Getzenberg, Ph.D.,
is the Brady’s new Director of Research.
|
|
For Getzenberg, this is a homecoming —and
the chance of a lifetime, to step into theformidable shoes of his former
mentor, Donald S. Coffey, Ph.D., whose 30-year tenure as Director of the
Research Laboratories put Hopkins at the forefront of urologic research
worldwide. “It’s great to be back,” he says. “I cannot overstate how excited
I am to be here.”Hiring Getzenberg as the successor to Coffey — whose
research at Hopkins is still going strong — was one of the first things
Alan W. Partin, M.D, Ph.D., did when he succeeded Patrick C. Walsh, M.D.,
as the Brady’s new director. “Dr. Getzenberg brings a fresh new
approach to discovery that combines critical thinking, state-of-the-art
research methods and quality leadership,” says Partin.“We
are extremely fortunate to have him.”Getzenberg, professor of urology,
earned his Ph.D. from Hopkins in 1992, then completed a postdoctoral fellowship
at the Yale University School of Medicine. He returns to Baltimore after
spending 11 years at the University of Pittsburgh, where he directed urological
research in the Department of Urology, co-directed the Prostate and Urologic
Cancer Center of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, and served
as professor of urology, pathology, and pharmacology at the University
of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. In his distinguished career so far,
| “We can circle
the wagons around prostate cancer,”attacking it from all sides.
|
Getzenberg has earned many awards,
is the recipient of grants from the National Institutes of Health and
other agencies and foundations, and was a member of the Board of Directors
of the American Foundation for Urologic Diseases. The Brady is “in
the driver’s seat” of urology research, says Getzenberg, and
he intends to keep it there. “We are clearly at an exciting time
in scientific research. Thereare many new technologies, and large projects
like the human genome effort have been completed. Our task now is convert
these as quickly as possible to discoveries that will help our patients.”
In addition to continuing his own exciting research (see
side story), he has several plans in mind formaking this happen:
Recruiting worldwide.
“For the first time in the Brady’s history, we have an international
search going on, to identify the best investigators in the world,”
he notes. He and Partin are thinking big, looking for scientists who will
bring “new ideas, new expertise, and new approaches,” to prostate
cancer research.
Assembling
multidisciplinary teams. By bringing together scientists
from different disciplines to focus on specific problems, “we can
circle the wagons around prostate cancer,” attacking it from all
sides. A key part of this endeavor, Getzenberg notes, is The Patrick C.
Walsh Prostate Cancer Research Fund, which “allows us to make certain
that any scientist at Johns Hopkins who is interested in working on prostate
cancer is able to. We are also seeking out scientists who may never have
considered working on prostate cancer, explaining to them how their work
may be applicable to the disease and allowing them to refocus their minds
on this problem. This is an amazing opportunity to bring so many fantastic
scientists to the field.
| “We have many exciting
ideas,but we need to move them much more rapidly to the pointwhere
they have an impact on patients’ lives.” |
”Speeding
up the pace from bench to bedside.“ We have
many exciting ideas, but we need to move them much more rapidly to the
point where they have an impact on patients’lives,” Getzenberg
says. One way to do this is to make the most of the massive sources of
patient information already on hand at the Brady. Help is needed in the
form of people— epidemiologists, bioinformationists, computer programmers
and others — who can make sense of of all of this information, so
Brady scientists can “carefully focus on which of it is clinically
meaningful.”
|