The first installment in a series of posts on the status of cancer research and cancer treatment has been posted at Dean’s World. The series has been written by guest bloggers George L Gabor Miklos, PhD and Phillip John Baird, MD PhD.
George L Gabor Miklos and Phillip John Baird are Director and CEO, respectively, of Secure Genetics and Integrated Diagnostic Pathology. The former is a molecular genetics-based data evaluation company, the latter a clinical diagnostic pathology company. Neither is affiliated with, nor receives any monetary compensation, gifts or other payments in lieu, from pharmaceutical companies, government funding bodies or private institutions in the cancer or drug development areas.
The War on Cancer is more than 30 years old, having been announced by Richard Nixon during his first term and actually getting up some steam during Nixon’s second term. Some progress has been made but not as much as might have been hoped considering the billions that have been invested.
I don’t object to government-funded research per se but I’m skeptical as to whether large scale government funding of medical research actually results in more research being done. Medicine is a special case—the supply of doctors doesn’t rise as a result of increased funding the way that the supply of electrical engineers rose, for example, as a result of the space program.
I’d have to question the evaluation. If cancer were a single disease, rather than in effect a symptom, then you would have a good point. But cancer is not a single disease… Some cancers, such as my own, are effectively cured, whereas a mere 10 years ago they were death sentences. Others, more complex or less researched, are obviously not there.
As for the issue of research money – here I think one can’t be categorical. Sometimes government money is merely additional, sometimes it is is the only real money, other times… may be pointless. Having formerly worked in big Pharma it strikes me that government research money to “big diseases” which hit well-insured segments of the population is usually additional, but can help subsidize more experimental paths; subsidy to risky investment. Is is a net cost beneficial investment? Dunno.
Government support to research on diseases tending to hit less-well-medically covered populations seems to me on my gut thinking back to what I saw an easy win-win; given combined numbers, potentially pay-off in investment (versus human) terms.
Research to rare diseases? Hard to call, possibly one of those things one has to justify outside investment frameworks.
My interest is in increasing the amount of research. I’m relatively indifferent as to where the funding comes from.
My concern is that, at least in the United States, the number of researchers is fixed (or highly inelastic). That means that an influx of money doesn’t necessarily result in more research. It may change the nature of the research by motivating researchers to move from one field to another but, unless if diverts people from treating illness to research, doesn’t increase the number of researchers.
We need to increase the number of researchers. And the number of people treating illness. Moving from one pocket to another isn’t enough.
Well, increasing the amount of research is something that is rather a long term issue. An influx of money if not sustained of course merely shifts resources – that may or may not be a good thing; sustained increase may attract further researchers.
I don’t see your dilemma per se, to be frank (and I might question your assumption re the number of researchers insofar as depending on the visa situation increased spending in the US can indeed attract in more researchers from other countries, who may in a better research environment, be more effective).
I am much more interested in the idea of research into things that might actually work – which does not necessarily mean the same as that set of things that Big Pharma wants to research.
I have two particular cases in mind which illustrate the point. One is DCA (dichloroacetate) which is fairly promising as an agent against various cancers, and is never going to get a penny of drug company money for research. Why? Because they can’t patent it and it’s cheap – it can be made pretty easily, by the ton.
Another one is Ro-Accutane (spelling?) used for acne. This is in fact research-based – except that the original research was done on vitamin A. Vitamin A is effective for acne, in high doses, and has very little toxicity in those doses. But it isn’t patentable – so the drug company response was to tweak the molecule a bit, making it slightly more effective and twenty times as toxic, do a bit more research, patent the resulting compound and make a bucketload of money.
There needs to be research done on “alternative” medicine. Drug companies won’t finance it, for sure – so someone else needs to, either some non-profit foundation or, I’m afraid, some government or other.
Drug companies are very rich, very powerful, and very ruthless in their approach to making money – they make the Mafia look like pikers, especially as unsafe and/or mis-prescribed drugs kill tens of thousands per annum. The cases that reach the MSM are the tip of the iceberg.
they make the Mafia look like pikers
Ah, what diseased imaginations do.
Pharma companies are like any company – one aims to make money. Profit motive, etc.
“MSM”
Sad people you are, paranoid, delusional and just plain silly whankers.