CEO of Sean Parker's breakthrough cancer drug institute on leading new race for cure
Karen Knudsen did not grow up in a scientifically centered home. She grew up in a military family. But at an early age, as a "naturally curious" kid, she came to love the experience of discovery and gravitated toward math and science. That led Knudsen to assume she would one day become a medical doctor. But her career went in another scientific direction, starting with a stint as a summer research intern working in the lab at the National Cancer Institute during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s.
"There was so much interest in trying to understand retrovirus like HIV, and so I went to a lab that was actually using retrovirus as a way to study cancer," she recalled in a recent interview with CNBC's Julia Boorstin for the CNBC Changemakers Spotlight series (Knudsen was named to the inaugural CNBC Changemakers list in 2024). "It got me very interested in that direct line. How does what I'm doing right now in the laboratory have an opportunity to impact a life, and I got hooked, and I never looked back," she said.
Knudsen's experience as an oncology researcher at large health care systems, and seeing many mergers taking place around her, led to the realization that it might help to know more about the business of health care. She chose to pursue an MBA. "I'm not sure I'll forget the look on my husband when I came home one day and said, 'I'm going to get my MBA'," Knudsen recalled. "That was probably one of the more unexpected decisions."
Ultimately, it led to Knudsen becoming the first female CEO of the more-than-century-old American Cancer Society, though she says it's even more important that she was the first CEO for the organization to come from oncology research. Under Knudsen's leadership, ACS's revenue increased by over 30%.
Recently, Knudsen assumed the CEO post at the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy — created by Sean Parker, Facebook's first president and the tech entrepreneur behind breakthrough ideas like Napster — where a new philanthropy-meets-venture-capital business model that aligns with Knudsen's lifelong interest in discovery is being built.
The mission hasn't changed: "In the U.S., we have 2.1 million Americans that are going to get a new cancer diagnosis this year, and unfortunately, 600,000 plus people who will die from one of the 200 diseases we call cancer," she said.
While there has been a 34% decline in cancer mortality since 1991, primarily attributed to earlier detection and preventative health practices, Knudsen's new role places her at the forefront of efforts to fund a new generation of breakthrough cancer drugs.
Knudsen spoke with CNBC's Boorstin about how she reached this stage of her career, and the lessons she has learned from a lifetime devoted to experimentation. Here are some highlights from the full video interview.
As a scientist, Knudsen says, "You get very comfortable with hypothesis generation and testing," and that is in some ways similar to a business executive trying to figure out what is going to come next in their market, and how to remain successful as conditions change.
Scientists get comfortable developing a set of success metrics that enable them to know quickly whether it's time to quit on a hypothesis or move ahead. Knudsen says that is part of the "overlapping mindset between being a scientist and being a business person" which has helped her to succeed as she moved from research into executive leadership.
"It made the process of developing a set of success metrics and creating a business strategy that tells you when you may be onto something, or not, fairly easy," she said.
As a researcher within health systems who saw firsthand how a wave of consolidation could reshape entities and raise the question of how every person, process and practice might need to change, Knudsen says you need to be ready to identify not only what works but also what needs to go away.
Coming into the CEO post at ACS was "like coming into a fresh merger that was in need of business transformation," she said. "Finding opportunities and fixing what needs repairing is often the hardest part of leadership," she added.
Knudsen took a hard look at a bureaucracy that over more than a century had grown into 12 separate organizations, with 12 CEOs and 12 strategies, and she made significant changes to streamline the operation. It wasn't all about rooting out the inefficiencies, though. "I was on the road 49 weeks of the year for four years in a row, because you really needed to be there to see what was so good in these various areas, and apply that to the rest of the organization," Knudsen said.
Her larger point is that a lifetime in research has made her a leader who sees change as a constant. "Because medicine is changing, science is changing, technology will change ... It's okay to transform and to constantly iterate," she said.
Sean Parker comes out of the Silicon Valley "move fast and break things" world of success, and Knudsen says she had learned to be "a little more confident at risk-taking" over the years.
Working with Parker, who was the first president of Facebook and co-founder of Napster, is the culmination of the risk-taking business side of her mindset.
"He's unafraid of thinking differently," Knudsen said, adding that he still embodies the idea that "if we're failing, let's fail fast."
More specifically, she said Parker identified that lack of access to capital was a major impediment to progress in the fight against cancer, and that was holding the risk takers back from doing what they do best.
"The whole philosophy of the Parker Institute is to, step one, collect the best brains. Give them investment in funding to do the high risk, high gain, cutting-edge research, which could fail but could also dramatically transform cancer therapy," she said.
Founded in 2016 by Parker to turn all cancers into "curable diseases," the institute supports clinical testing, startup formation and incubation, and drug commercialization. In all, PICI has supported the work of 1,000 researchers and helped to create a $4 billion venture capital portfolio that includes 17 biotech companies.
"I think it's because we've de-risked the science from the very beginning," Knudsen said. "We're not waiting for someone to pitch for us. So I'm feeling very bullish about the ability to crank this wheel," she said.
Knudsen has had many mentors throughout her journey. One she cited was Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Association, who she says was a "fountain of knowledge" to her. But as CEO of the American Cancer Society, she surrounded herself "with CEOs from all walks of life. I had a CEOs council that was hot dial," Knudsen said. "There are some things you just really need to talk to other CEOs about."
She also emphasized that women pursuing success should expect to have to fight even harder for female representation the higher they ascend up a professional ladder. Statistically, that is the case whether in the business or academic world. More than 50% of both MD and PhD programs are filled with women, but only 12% become full professors, department chairs or deans. In the business world, 10% of women hold CEO positions in S&P 500 companies; and approximately 12% in VC-backed companies and 13% at health-care firms.
The hurdles, whether it is related to gender, the inherent risk of failure in scientific endeavors, or lack of access to capital, are barriers that Knudsen's mission has helped her to overcome.
"What I've always wanted to do, whether it's as a scientist, whether it's as a health executive, the CEO of the American Cancer Society or now the Parker Institute, it's to get innovation to people," she said. "We're at this moment in time where there is so much discovery that's happening, the pace of change is truly logarithmic, and yet, too many great ideas don't ever make it off the laboratory floor."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
How Animal Testing in US Could Be Transformed Under Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Millions of animals each year are killed in U.S. laboratories as part of medical training and chemical, food, drug and cosmetic testing, according to the non-profit animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). For many animals held captive for research, including a huge range of species from dogs, cats and hamsters to elephants, dolphins and many other species, pain is "not minimized," U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows. The issue of animal testing is something most Americans agree on: it needs to change and gradually be stopped. A Morning Consult poll conducted at the end of last year found that 80 percent of the 2,205 participants either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "The US government should commit to a plan to phase out experiments on animals." Since President Donald Trump began his second term, his administration has been making moves to transform and reduce animal testing in country, although the question remains as to whether it will be enough to spare many more animals from pain and suffering this year. Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva What Is The Trump Administration Doing About It? There have been various steps taken in different federal agencies to tackle the issue of animal testing since Trump was sworn in on January 20. In April, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was "taking a groundbreaking step to advance public health by replacing animal testing in the development of monoclonal antibody therapies and other drugs with more effective, human-relevant methods." The FDA said that its animal testing requirement will be "reduced, refined, or potentially replaced" with a range of approaches, including artificial intelligence-based models, known as New Approach Methodologies or NAMs data. A Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official told Newsweek: "The agency is paving the way for faster, safer, and more cost-effective treatments for American patients. "As we restore the agency's commitment to gold-standard science and integrity, this shift will help accelerate cures, lower drug prices, and reaffirm U.S. leadership in ethical, modern science." The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it was "adopting a new initiative to expand innovative, human-based science while reducing animal use in research," in alignment with the FDA's initiative. The agency said that while "traditional animal models continue to be vital to advancing scientific knowledge," new and emerging technologies could act as alternative methods, either alone or in combination with animal models. The NIH Office of Extramural Research told Newsweek it was "committed to transparently assessing where animal use can be reduced or eliminated by transitioning to [new approach methodologies (NAMs)]." "Areas where research using animals is currently necessary represent high-priority opportunities for investment in NAMs," the agency added. It added that it will "further its efforts to coordinate agency-wide efforts to develop, validate, and scale the use of NAMs across the agency's biomedical research portfolio and facilitate interagency coordination and regulatory translation for public health protection." During Trump's first term, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a directive to "prioritize efforts to reduce animal testing and committed to reducing testing on mammals by 30 percent by 2025 and to eliminate it completely by 2035," an EPA spokesperson told Newsweek. Although, the spokesperson added: "the Biden Administration halted progress on these efforts by delaying compliance deadlines." As a member of the House, Lee Zeldin, the EPA's current administrator, co-sponsored various bills during Trump's first term regarding animal cruelty, covering issues such as phasing out animal-based testing for cosmetic products; ending taxpayer funding for painful experiments on dogs at the Department of Veteran Affairs; empowering federal law enforcement to prosecute animal abuse cases that cross state lines; and others, the spokesperson said. What The Experts Think Needs To Be Done The Trump administration's efforts to tackle the issue of animal testing appear to be a step in the right direction, according to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "I was pleasantly surprised and quite frankly a bit shocked to read the simultaneous announcements by the NIH and the FDA regarding a new emphasis on the use of alternatives to animals," Jeffrey Morgan, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at Brown University in Rhode Island, told Newsweek. Morgan, who is also the director of the Center for Alternatives to Animals in Testing at Brown University, said that both agencies are moving together in the same direction on the issue "sends a unified and very powerful message to the research and biotech communities." He added that the announcements showed "a major acknowledgement of the limitations of the use of animals in research and testing." "What is especially exciting is that the NIH announcement will encourage the entry of new investigators into the field, further accelerating innovation in alternatives with exciting impacts for both discovery and applied research across all diseases," he said. He added that the FDA announcement and its emphasis on a new regulatory science that embraces data from alternatives was "equally exciting." "The demands of this new regulatory science will likewise accelerate innovation because it will establish the much-needed regulatory framework for the rigorous evaluation of data from alternatives," he said. While the administration's initiatives to shift research away from animal testing is heading in the right direction, its policies are "overdue," Dr. Thomas Hartung, a professor in the department of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. "The animal tests for safety were introduced more than 50 years ago. There is no other area of science where we do not adapt to scientific progress," he said. Hartung added that animal "testing takes too long and is too expensive to really provide the safety consumers want." He said that running animal tests for new chemicals can cost millions and take years in some cases. "Nobody can wait that long, even if they can afford the testing costs," he said. Hartung also believes the shifts in the industry to reduce animal testing have been "coming for a while," as over the last two decades, America's opposition to animal use in medical research has been increasing. "The alignment of FDA and NIH really makes the difference now, which I think is evidence of a strong relationship of their leaderships," he said. Yet in order to make a real difference, Hartung said clear deadlines are key to show that "this is not just lip service." He also said that he thought "the transformative nature of artificial intelligence in this field is not fully acknowledged." "We also need an objective framework for change to better science, such as the evidence-based toxicology approach," he said.
New York Post
13 hours ago
- New York Post
Nearly 20K cancer patients at NYC's Memorial Sloan Kettering at risk of losing critical care over insurance spat
Nearly 20,000 patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering could lose access to critical care because of a contract battle between the renowned cancer hospital and health insurance behemoth UnitedHealthcare. The two sides have until the end of June to hash out a new deal over reimbursement rates — but are trading blame while patients, many in need of lifesaving care, anxiously wait to see if they will keep in-network treatment. Patient Lee Kassler, of Plainview, Long Island, said he was in 'disbelief' and 'shocked' when he found out that he could lose care on July 1 if the Manhattan hospital and health insurance company don't reach an agreement by June 30. 'Full of anxiety, full of stress, saddened, angry, worried, just a whole host of emotions that I was faced with when I was diagnosed with cancer,' Kassler, who has had a rare, incurable gastric cancer since 2022, told The Post Friday. The new grandfather, 61, said he goes to MSK with '110 percent' confidence, and couldn't imagine using another medical center for his 'life and death situation.' MSK officials have been pushing for a higher reimbursement rate for services, claiming the current yearly increase of 1.6% over the last five years isn't on par with rising costs the hospital is facing. 'MSK has worked hard to reach a long-term agreement with UHC — one that reflects the real cost and value of our specialized cancer care,' the hospital said in a statement. 'UHC refused to agree to that.' But UHC argued that the top-rated cancer treatment center is pushing a 35% spike in reimbursement rates over the next three years — which could cost the health insurance provider nearly $470 million. Memorial Sloan Kettering says UnitedHealthcare needs to increase the reimbursement. Christopher Sadowski 'Our top priority is to reach an agreement with MSK that is affordable for consumers and employers,' the company, which also covers Oxford plans, said in a statement to The Post. 'We have proposed meaningful rate increases that would continue to reimburse MSK at levels significantly higher than other National Cancer Institute-designated health systems in the New York City metro area.' The company, whose CEO Brian Thompson was fatally shot by alleged gunman Luigi Mangione last year, has also publicly worked to make its case to consumers. MSK chief medical officer Cardinale Smith, meanwhile, argued in an interview the proposal from the health insurer is not financially sustainable. UnitedHealthcare claims MSK's demands are too high. Getty Images 'Bottom line is that there are thousands of patients who need our care and UHC is just not putting them first,' Smith said. About 19,225 patients, including Kassler, could have treatment disrupted, hospital reps said. Sloan Kettering has gotten into past contract fights with Anthem and Cigna before deals were reached. Even if a new agreement with UHC isn't inked by June 30, a New York state law requires a cooling-off period in which at least some patients will get in-network care at the hospital through the end of August. The grace period applies to patients with fully insured UnitedHealthcare or Oxford plans for hospital care, both MSK and the health insurer said. Patients can also apply for continuity of care that would possibly give them a temporary extension of in-network treatment. With his birthday coming up in a few days, Kassler said all he wants is to receive news of a deal. 'The best birthday present was my grandson but the second best would be let's put this behind us,' Kassler said. 'Let me just be under the treatment of Sloan for a long time.'
Boston Globe
14 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court finds retired firefighter cannot sue for disability discrimination
Advertisement In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined, in part, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the justices had abandoned protections for vulnerable retirees. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Disabled Americans who have retired from the work force simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,' Jackson wrote, adding that Congress had 'plainly protected their right to do so' when it drafted the federal disability rights law. Sotomayor, in a separate writing, argued that a majority of the justices appeared in agreement that retirees may be able to bring disability discrimination claims for actions that occurred while they were still employed. Stanley might have been able to argue that this would apply in her case, too, Sotomayor wrote, but the court had not been asked to weigh in on that question. Advertisement Stanley worked as a firefighter in Sanford, Florida, a city of about 65,000 people northeast of Orlando. When she started her job in 1999, the city offered health insurance until age 65 for two categories of retirees -- those with 25 years of service and those who retired early because of disability. In 2003, the city changed its policy, limiting health insurance to those who retired because of disability to just 24 months of coverage. After nearly two decades, Stanley retired in 2018 at age 47 after she was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. She expected that the city would continue to pay for most of her health insurance until she turned 65, but it refused, citing its changed policy. Stanley sued, claiming that the city had violated the ADA by providing different benefits to 25-year employees versus those who retired because of a disability. She argued that the city's policy amounted to impermissible discrimination based on disability. A federal trial judge dismissed her claim under the ADA, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed. In asking the justices to hear the case, lawyers for Stanley said it could affect millions of disabled Americans who rely on retirement benefits that they earned while employed. One section of the ADA specifies that it is illegal to discriminate in compensation because of a disability. The justices wrestled with whether the section included retirees. Deepak Gupta, a lawyer for Stanley, said in an emailed statement that the decision had created 'a troubling loophole that allows employers to discriminate against retirees simply because they can no longer work due to their disabilities.' Advertisement In her dissent, Jackson wrote that she hoped Congress might step in and provide a 'legislative intervention' to shield other disabled retirees. This article originally appeared in
