This story may also throw a wrench in the works. Fetal stem cells were implanted into a boy with batten's disease. So far, so good.....
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/16220262.htm On 12/13/06, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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:222230 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
