>From Wired: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/medtech/0,72206-0.html?tw=rss.politics
NIH Funds Are for Research By Brandon Keim| Also by this reporter 02:00 AM Dec, 11, 2006 A favorite argument as to why the federal government should not fund embryonic stem cell research is that the science is unproven. It has not led to any cures or FDA-approved treatments. That happens to be true. But that doesn't make it a good argument. In fact, most of the science funded by the federal government is not successful yet, since proven science doesn't usually need funding. Scientists say people who argue against funding unproven stem-cell research miss the point. Science takes time. Almost every major advance in health care took decades of research -- often using millions in federal funding -- before being declared safe and effective in humans. Years are spent on research that is, by definition, unproven, if not far-fetched and hypothetical. Addressing an audience at the conservative Heritage Foundation in 2005, biotech consultant and cellular pharmacologist Kelly Hollowell said embryonic stem cells were a medical bust and deserved no federal research funding. "There are no human trials -- despite all the hype of media," she said. "After 20 years of research, embryonic stem cells haven't been used to treat people because the cells are unproven and unsafe." But what if the government had adopted that attitude when it came to the cancer drug paclitaxel? In 1970, researchers at the National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health (the country's clearinghouse for medical research funding) discovered the compound. The NCI spent $700 million developing Taxol (paclitaxel's brand name), and clinical trials dragged on through the 1980s before the drug was approved in 1992. It has since saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Also in the 1980s, NIH scientists spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing unproven vaccines for rotavirus, which kills half a million children every year, and human papilloma virus, which causes cervical cancer and annually kills more than 250,000 women. Commercial versions of both vaccines only appeared in 2006. "It's a mistake not to fund the long-term research," said Elisa Eiseman, a senior scientist at the nonprofit RAND Corporation. "It's that blue-sky, high-risk research that yields very amazing discoveries." Private-sector scientists tend to focus on quick payoffs, so it's up to the NIH to support research that may take decades to yield results. And while many scientists say too much NIH money goes to safe, short-term research, there's still enough left over for the cutting edge. Much experimental work involves making new tools for inspecting living bodies at the cellular level, where processes remain mysterious. Below is a summary of promising science that, like stem cell research, is utterly unproven. The difference is the federal government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to find out if one day it might ease pain or bring cures to suffering patients. Proteomics The 10-year, $600 million Protein Structure Initiative is another so-called high risk project. Scientists have identified the structures of more than a thousand proteins whose functions are not yet understood. With luck, a few might end up signaling the presence of a disease before it emerges, as with a telltale Alzheimer's compound found this year by National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute researchers. Of course, they might not -- but scientists say the only way to find out is to try. National Cancer Institute researchers also used an artificial intelligence program to analyze the protein patterns of finger-prick blood samples for early signs of ovarian cancer -- an endeavor that private companies wouldn't likely have the luxury of pursuing. Commercial scientists typically concentrate on leads provided by government-funded scientists, said Ken Dill, a University of California, San Francisco, biophysicist. "It's academics who explore the biology," Dill said. Experimental research into the human genome is another heavily-funded NIH field. Scientists now study gene expression at levels of complexity hardly imagined a decade ago. "The paradigm for the last 20 or 30 years has been to choose one particular protein or one gene and follow it," said Alan Schechter, chief of molecular medicine at the National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney diseases. "Now we appreciate that these processes are the results of interactions of dozens or hundreds of proteins and genes. One's guess is that, ultimately, these kinds of approaches will give us a new level of thinking about biological and medical processes. But, right now, the methods are controversial." Gene Therapy Another $200 million in NIH funding goes to the unproven but promising field of gene therapy. The long-anticipated technique has progressed slowly for more than 20 years, and could take decades more to become common. But gene therapy recently started showing potential. "It was in the same place that embryonic stem cells are now," said Eiseman. "It was hypothetical, pie-in-the-sky. But many trials are coming to fruition." NIH-funded scientists have used gene therapy to treat serious diseases and disabilities in animals, and in August reported success using gene therapy to treat two people with cancer. Research on humans slowed after the death of Jesse Gelsinger, and remains shadowed by serious safety concerns, but early clinical trials are ongoing. Next-generation Imaging "Standard imaging isn't good enough to see microscopic detail in the human body," said Alan McLaughlin, director of applied science at the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioEngineering, which spent $2.6 million this year on next-generation imagers. "We'd like to look at the chemical information in a tumor or special kind of cell, such as beta cells in the pancreas," McClaughlin said. "(They) are important to diabetes, but only present in the islets of Langerhans, which are about 100 microns wide. We can't look at that resolution now." Nanotechnology The NIH also spends nearly $200 million annually on nanotechnology and nanomedicine, which involves the atom-scale design of molecules that might someday repair or deliver drugs into cells. Again, no one knows if it will work. Whether many of these advances will turn into cures or treatments remains to be seen. But scientists say that history counsels patience. "With these kinds of approaches, one has to have the perspective that practical applications are likely to take decades," said Schechter. "The short-term results of new technologies are generally much less than people expect, but the long-term effects are greater." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:222226 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
