TED'S TAKE: RACE ENGINEER + CANCER RESEARCH

TGM races two Aston Martin race cars that are alike. The advantage of a two-car team? Since the cars are the same, you can set them up differently. It allows you to learn more and at a faster rate. The big IF is that the cars are identical or at least close. 

In 2024, we purchased two new, next generation cars from Aston Martin – one was our #64 race car, and one was our #46. We used different set ups for each car and the 64 car suddenly started to perform better. We put the set up from the 64 on the 46, expecting it to perform better too. Did it? Nope.

We tried our normal tinkering. Changing the ride height – no good. Changing the springs/rates – nope. Changing the brakes – nope. Brake compounds front to rear – nope. When we tried something, it made things worse. There was no improvement. When the drivers for the 46 car drove the 64 car they were immediately faster. We struggled to find out how to make the 46 better and nothing seemed to work.

Then someone suggested that we get a particular race engineer involved in our team. He was supposed to be very good and had a wide range of experience in professional racing. We did. We worked on the car and things were getting better, but not as we expected.

Then we had a scheduled two-day test at Watkins Glen and the forecast said it was supposed to rain. They were right. There was torrential rain for two days. We bailed on our track time because the risk was greater than anything we would learn. What we did instead was work in the garage tearing apart the 46 car and measuring things in comparison to the 64. We even took the pedal clusters out and examined them; both the cars side by side.

Guess what? The cars weren’t the same. Mounting points and brackets were a little off and some of the parts were a little different in thickness and other aspects. Once we adjusted for all these small differences, things improved and the technology transfer from one car to the other worked as we thought it should.

While the differences were small, the cumulative effect was what led to big improvements. We now understand the car and what we are dealing with and so can accommodate effective strategies for the set up and adjustments at different tracks.

The point: you need to get into the details and find out how things are put together; how exactly they work to move forward effectively and efficiently.

For us, it required getting back to basics...sacrificing time...thinking through things...involving a different perspective, etc. We never thought to do these basic measurements and analytics in the beginning. We assumed and we were wrong.

Cancer research is the same way.  We rarely focus on the basics of how things work. Doing so would require the investment of time and resources to explore something not knowing if we’ll find anything worthwhile.

Many treatments or solutions are based on the research we assume is correct, but  much of this research was the byproduct of findings from other work built on proven theories not specific or focused on the relevant area of research. Some is influenced by prior research and general consensus of belief among leaders in the research community. The result is a sort of research dogma: many believe concepts or theories, but there are no studies that prove it.

Thus, for many funders including the government and the drug companies, basic research is a risky process, so they don’t invest in the early exploration of science.

But think about that. Shouldn’t we invest in the basics? Isn’t that where we can find things earlier and influence the direction of future research which will lead to more effective and efficient treatments?

If we wait until something is found and then dive in (which is more or less what is done today) we delay things. We keep tinkering without achieving optimum results. We develop treatments that are not as timely or as effective as they could be. And those treatments wind up being very targeted on smaller segments of the cancer spectrum (but they sell more drugs). This process also  influences new thinking which may or may not be correct but will guide countless clinical actions.

This is why the Jayne Koskinas Ted Giovanis Foundation for Health and Policy (JKTG Foundation) invests in basic biology. This approach garners discovery of how things work and does so without fanfare. Importantly, it’s this back to basics science that will influence the future direction of other research and eventual treatments. No matter what we learn, even if our hypotheses prove wrong, at least we know – at least we’ve asked the question – and then can build that knowledge into our (and everyone else’s) future projects. What we learn today is the future of cancer treatment.

Race fans may have noticed that Team TGM cars have a new mantra #drivingresearch. This is why. Because we are driving research in a new, more effective direction that will ultimately benefit us all.