Announcements

We are pleased to announce the winner of the Cancers 2024 Outstanding Reviewer Award, Dr. Mohammad Hasanain.

The following is a short interview with Dr. Mohammad Hasanain:

1. Could you give us a brief introduction of yourself to the readers?
I was born and raised in Jaunpur, a small town in Uttar Pradesh, India. Growing up, I was always curious about how things work, especially the human body and diseases like cancer.
I completed my undergraduate studies in life sciences and began my scientific journey with a strong interest in the molecular mechanisms behind cancer progression. I pursued my Ph.D. in India, where I focused on studying the mechanism of action of novel anticancer compounds identified through screening. My research emphasized the roles of apoptosis and autophagy in promoting cancer cell death, specifically how the crosstalk between these two processes could be harnessed to develop more effective chemotherapeutic strategies. In January 2020, after completing my Ph.D., I moved to the United States to join the laboratories of Dr. Antonio Iavarone and Dr. Anna Lasorella at the Institute for Cancer Genetics, Columbia University, New York. There, I expanded my research into glioblastoma, aiming to understand the molecular landscape and tumor microenvironment that support this highly aggressive brain cancer. In September 2022, I continued working with the same group at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System, following their relocation. Since then, my research has focused on investigating the self-renewing properties of glioma stem cells and the key drivers of glioblastoma growth and progression. I use advanced in vivo models to study the tumor microenvironment and its contribution to therapy resistance. My long-term research goals include developing robust mouse models of glioblastoma, identifying critical pathways involved in tumor initiation and progression, and translating these findings into novel therapeutic strategies for patients affected by this devastating disease.

2. What is your current research, and why did you choose this research field?
Right now, my research is focused on glioblastoma, a very aggressive and heartbreaking form of brain cancer. I am particularly interested in the glioma stem cells, which are a small population of cells within the tumor that can self-renew, resist treatment, and are often responsible for tumor recurrence. I am also studying the tumor microenvironment—basically, how the surroundings of the tumor help it survive and grow, even in the face of therapies. I chose this field because of urgent clinical need. Despite significant advances in cancer treatment, glioblastoma remains a disease with a very poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. Although the complexity of the tumor, especially its heterogeneity and adaptability, presents a major challenge, it also serves as an opportunity to uncover novel insights that could lead to meaningful breakthroughs. I was drawn to this area not only for its scientific challenges but also for the potential impact our findings could have on patient care. Working in this field allows me to combine advanced techniques in cancer biology, stem cell research, and in vivo modeling to address questions that are both fundamental and translational. Ultimately, my goal is to identify new vulnerabilities in GBM that can be targeted with more effective therapies.

3. What are your opinions about the scientific publication market, and what do you think about the open access model?
Honestly, the scientific publishing world is a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is how we share our hard-earned discoveries with the world. But on the other hand, it can feel like a system that is not always built for the benefit of science or scientists, especially when important research gets locked behind expensive paywalls. Traditional subscription-based models often limit access, creating barriers for researchers in underfunded institutions or developing countries, which ultimately slows down scientific progress and collaboration. That is why I strongly support the open access model. I think knowledge should be freely available to anyone who is curious, whether that is a scientist in a well-funded lab or a student in a small town with big dreams. Open access makes research more visible, more shareable, and ultimately, more impactful. And in fields like cancer research, where lives are literally on the line, we cannot afford delays in access to information. However, the current open access model still comes with its own set of challenges. The high article processing charges (APCs) required by many journals can be a major barrier, especially for early career researchers or those without strong financial support. It is not always fair that researchers have to pay so much just to share their work. We need better support systems and alternative funding mechanisms to make open access more inclusive and sustainable, not just for those with big grants or institutional backing. Furthermore, science is about discovery, collaboration, and hope. The more open we are with our knowledge, the faster we can move toward breakthroughs that truly make a difference. That is the future I want to be part of; one where science is accessible, equitable, and driven by the needs of people, not just the publishing industry.

4. Have you ever encountered any difficulties when you conduct research? How did you overcome them?
Absolutely, challenges in experimental setups are something every researcher faces, but I have come to understand that these moments are not exceptions in science; they are science. Especially in cancer research, where the biological systems we study are so complex and every patient sample is unique, difficulties are part of the process. I am working with primary patient-derived glioma models in vitro and in vivo, which can be unpredictable and sensitive. There were moments when experiments failed repeatedly, and it felt like the work was stuck. But those are the moments that really bring out the deeper values of science. The way I overcame those challenges was not by trying harder alone; it was through adopting a scientific temperament rooted in problem-solving, collaboration, and patience. What helped me overcome these challenges was developing a balanced approach, scientifically, mentally, and even physically. Meticulously, I took a step back and broke the problem down into smaller pieces, methodically troubleshooting each part. I documented everything carefully, repeated tests, and, most importantly, engaged with peers. I asked for input, shared what I was facing, and welcomed criticism and suggestions. That openness to feedback and willingness to learn from others always makes the difference. What is special about the scientific community is that we are united by a shared mission. We all want to understand disease better, to find answers, to improve lives. When I struggled in the lab, I was never truly alone; instead, I was part of a larger ecosystem of researchers, mentors, and even patients who believed in the same goal. That collective mindset helped me stay motivated. It turned frustration into curiosity and setbacks into learning experiences. What drives me, and I think many of us in this field, is knowing that our work has real meaning. We are not just moving pipettes and analyzing graphs; we are trying to give hope to people who are in some of the hardest battles of their lives. That understanding adds a layer of purpose that keeps me grounded and driven, even when the path gets tough. Science is not always fast or easy, but it is influential. And when we approach it with persistence, humility, and compassion for each other and for those we hope to help, we will always find a way forward.

5. What qualities do you think young scientists need? What qualities do you think reviewers need?
That is a great question, and if there is one thing I believe deeply, it is this: science is not just about data and discoveries; it is about individuals. The mindset we bring into the lab and the values we uphold as a community matter just as much as the results we publish. For young scientists, I would say the most important quality is inquisitiveness. It is that spark—the constant desire to ask “why,” to explore the unknown, and to challenge what we think we already understand. But along with curiosity, you need flexibility. Research is full of failure. Experiments do not always work. Papers get rejected. Grants do not come through. And that can be tough, especially early on. But these challenges are all part of the journey. What matters is how you respond, how you grow from those moments. Another quality I really value is humility. No one knows everything. Being open to learning, listening to others, and asking for help when you need it, that is what makes a good scientist even better. And of course, thirst—that deep, personal commitment to the work you are doing. Because when the days get long, and they will, it is that passion that keeps you going.
Now when it comes to reviewers, I think we sometimes forget how powerful that role is. Reviewers shape the tone of the scientific conversation. So, the essential thing we need is impartiality. A good review should be objective and based on the science, not personal bias. Then, there is productivity. It is easy to criticize, but it is much more meaningful to offer suggestions for improvement. We are not just gatekeepers—we are mentors at that moment, even if we never meet the authors. And conclusively, compassion. Behind every manuscript is a person, or a team, who worked incredibly hard. A little encouragement can go a long way, especially for young researchers who are just stepping into the field. We need a culture in science that lifts each other up. One that challenges everyone, yes, but with kindness, with rigor, and with the shared belief that we are all working toward something bigger than ourselves. Because at the end of the day, science is not a competition. It is a collective mission. And the more we support each other, the further we all go.