Welcome to the "First 90 Days" series, which focuses on how pharmaceutical executives and industry leaders plan their path to success in new roles. In this episode, our guest is Alicia Zhou, CEO of the Cancer Research Institute (CRI).

Less than a month into her role as CEO of the nonprofit Cancer Research Institute, Alicia Zhou has already outlined a series of ambitious visions for the organization's future development.

Since 1953, CRI has continuously funded cutting-edge oncology research, focusing primarily on immunotherapy—a field considered experimental and non-mainstream at the time. Today, immuno-oncology has become a major pillar of cancer treatment and research, giving rise to several global blockbuster drugs.

In Zhou's view, the field still has opportunities for further evolution, and CRI needs to play a greater role in fostering collaborative pathways among stakeholders in drug development. As CRI's first new CEO in over three decades, Zhou hopes to draw on Silicon Valley experience to upgrade the nonprofit's operating model.

"Silicon Valley's strength lies in bringing together expertise from different fields to solve a single problem. As basic cancer research becomes increasingly data-driven, this is crucial."

—Alicia Zhou, CEO, Cancer Research Institute

For example, when CRI awards academic research grants—such as the five-year, $1.25 million "Star Award" for researchers—its support focuses on individual scientific talent rather than specific projects. Zhou, who held a leadership role at a healthcare startup before taking the helm at CRI, sees an opportunity to bring this "people-first" funding model to cancer research.

"What's interesting about this model is that it reminds me of an old saying in Silicon Valley, where I'm from: 'Invest in the founder, not the company,'" Zhou said. "We invest in the scientist themselves, not necessarily their project, which is quite different from how most institutions fund research."

Under Zhou's leadership, CRI will focus on data-driven research projects that require cross-sector collaboration among pharmaceutical companies, government, nonprofits, and academia.

Here, Zhou articulates the vision she brings to CRI, how she plans to address the "fragmentation" problem in cancer research, and how she aims to break down barriers so scientists and industry can join forces in a more collaborative, data-driven fight against cancer.

This interview has been edited for length and style.

Taking over after more than three decades of leadership—how to build on the past while moving forward?

PHARMAVOICE: You are succeeding Jill O'Donnell-Tormey, who led CRI for more than 30 years. As the cancer field evolves rapidly, how do you plan to continue her vision while incorporating your own experience?

ALICIA ZHOU: I do face significant pressure. One of the reasons CRI attracted me is its deep tradition of supporting top scientists in immunotherapy research over the long term.

The question before me is: What is CRI's next evolution? How do we expand our impact and reach? I enjoy thinking about how nonprofits can change the research landscape through investment and building data-driven research assets. As a newcomer, I've noticed that scientific research is becoming increasingly fragmented. People each take a small piece of the "pie" and say: We're going to treat this specific cancer, this type of patient with a specific molecular genotype. But as a patient, you want holistic treatment recommendations. I hope CRI can play a role in "defragmentation," bringing parties together to discuss how to treat the whole patient, not just one part of the tumor.

How do you advance "defragmentation"?

Nonprofits have a unique advantage in convening dialogue among parties. Pharmaceutical companies must be driven by revenue—and that's understandable—but precisely because of that, they focus intensely on areas where their pipelines are strongest. At a nonprofit, we're not pursuing the success of a single drug or pathway; we're committed to a larger mission: making immunotherapy benefit all cancer patients. From that foundation, we can cross the for-profit and nonprofit boundary to conceive collaborations and partnerships.

In immunotherapy, the current problem is data fragmentation: different patients receive different types of immunotherapy, and the information we have includes tumor microenvironment status before, during, and after treatment, who responds, who doesn't, and who develops resistance. We believe the answers may lie in the data, and what CRI can do is integrate that data. For-profit entities may be reluctant to invest the time and money to do this, but a nonprofit can truly advance the field in this way.

What transfers and what doesn't from Silicon Valley experience

My experience in Silicon Valley gives me a unique perspective on problem-solving. In large, established organizations, people often assume "this is just how things are done," but startups ask "why is it done this way?" I love that spirit of questioning. What Silicon Valley excels at is bringing together expertise from different fields to solve a single problem. As basic cancer research becomes increasingly data-driven, this becomes especially important. You can't turn biologists into machine learning experts, and you can't turn machine learning experts into biologists, so the key is getting both to sit at the same table.

But the Silicon Valley model has its limits. In consumer tech startups, the risks are relatively low—but in healthcare, the stakes are much higher. So, we can learn to move faster, but we must be far more cautious with any disruptive new technology. In medicine, there's much less room for error and for "moving fast and breaking things."

How do you build influence to foster industry collaboration?

Ultimately, we must demonstrate our unique value to every stakeholder in the field—pharmaceutical companies, academic centers, donors. I accepted this position because I believe CRI has the ability to do this, and to do so, we must become more collaborative and think about new models of partnership.

All scientists, whether in academia or industry, are pursuing the same thing: discovering and moving toward cures. There must be a model that allows pharmaceutical scientists to collaborate with academia without compromising their proprietary intellectual property, while enabling everyone to move forward together. If you can open that door and start the conversation, you'd be surprised how many pharmaceutical scientists have ideas of all kinds—and I'm willing to proactively initiate those conversations.