| FAQ/Help |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
10-27-2007, 01:51 AM
|
#11 | ||
|
|||
|
Member
|
you crack me up!
|
||
|
 Reply With Quote
|
|
10-27-2007, 06:44 AM
|
#12 | |||
|
||||
|
In Remembrance
|
Quote:
Medical Research Who's In Charge Of Finding Cures? Michael J. Fox 10.25.07, 12:30 PM ET We're living in incredible times. Scientists at the dawn of the 21st century have access to unprecedented resources for increasing understanding of the basic mechanisms of human life, and for translating that hard-earned understanding into tangible advances in human health. The return on our investment in unraveling the human genome alone promises to usher in a new medical era. So it stands to reason we'd be making inroads to the hunt for treatments that could make illness and injury a thing of the past. With disease exacting an unknowable burden of human suffering--not to mention an economic toll estimated in the hundreds of billons worldwide--by rights, there should be a Department of Cures in every government, university and pharmaceutical company in the world. In fact, that's the system most of us believe we have. The prospect of disease is frightening; we take refuge in the idea that an army of problem-solvers is continually tinkering with the puzzle pieces of human biology until they fit together and spell "cure." Yet anyone who's experienced a diagnosis of disease, or gone through it with a loved one, has found out through difficult experience that it's just not that easy. You can never really get a straight answer to a simple question: Who's in charge of finding cures? Turns out the biomedical research system, as it exists today, is more like a labyrinth than a channel. You and I, together with other taxpayers, private philanthropists and investors, fund it to the tune of over $100 billion every year. But that stunning amount of money has yet to yield a blueprint for translating the science that expands the base of human knowledge into real advances we would feel in our daily lives. And the more our foundation learns about the scientific enterprise, the more deeply we understand that check-writing alone is never going to get us where we need to go. It's also going to take fixing a system that is fundamentally broken. Broken how? Everyone can agree on the one long-term goal that matters most: speeding up the delivery of scientific solutions for the diseases that ail us. It's the short-term goals and rewards that don't seem to play well together in the sandbox. A researcher in a university lab needs to focus on the kinds of incremental steps forward that get published in scientific journals, while a decision-maker in an industry setting is on the hunt for a massively profitable blockbuster drug. The philosophical and funding gap between these two short-term goals is a chasm, and so far, it's shown no signs of bridging itself. From the vantage point of patients and families waiting for new treatments, there's a critical need for creative, even unorthodox, solutions that could orchestrate all the players on the field--academic and industry scientists, public and private funders--working together toward the big goal. We owe it to ourselves to do the big-picture thinking about how to streamline these disparate parties' efforts into an organized system that maximizes everyone's results and keeps them moving forward toward the ultimate prize. For our part, our Foundation is taking a proactive approach: emphasizing calculated risk, insisting on accountability from our partners and prioritizing the work that other funders can't or won't. In short, we're doing whatever it takes to push forward strategic solutions with potential to make a tangible difference in patients' lives. So, just what do we think it takes? For a start, driving research projects to "de-risk" nearly 100 potential Parkinson's drug targets so far, and using all the resources we've got--funding, convening power, industry partnerships--to keep the most promising of them moving forward. Or hosting the first major conference with an exclusive focus on drug development for Parkinson's disease (something we're doing Thursday in New York City) to bring together academic and industry scientists from around the world to network, showcase the most exciting ideas and forge new collaborations and handoffs. We're not naïve; We know finding a cure for PD is going to take a lot of money, and within the ecosystem of biomedical research funding, our resources are modest. Still, small isn't nothing, and our approach has already had an impact and gotten attention; we like to think of it as "disruptive philanthropy," for its potential to overturn the status quo. We're the first to admit that our strategic, de-risking model is unproven. We've already learned a lot from a handful of like-minded organizations about how to keep getting better at this. We'll continue learning and adjusting as we go. The millions of lives touched by illness or injury are lived in the balance between deep frustration and deep hope. We owe it to every one of them to shore up that hope by insisting on something better than the system we've got today. Finding a better path forward is a genuine challenge, but with enough smart and ambitious people willing to settle for nothing less, it's more than possible--it's inevitable. Who's in charge of finding cures? When it comes right down to it, the truth is, we all are. Michael J. Fox, the actor, established The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research. The Foundation is co-hosting the PD Therapeutics Conference, the first major scientific symposium with an exclusive focus on drug development for Parkinson's disease, Thursday in New York City .
__________________
with much love, lou_lou . . by . , on Flickr pd documentary - part 2 and 3 . . Resolve to be tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving, and tolerant with the weak and the wrong. Sometime in your life you will have been all of these. |
|||
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
|
10-27-2007, 07:45 AM
|
#13 | |||
|
||||
|
Member
|
1. the cure is probably already out there
2. the only way we will find it is by some researcher BLUNDERING upon it, and REALIZING what it is. ( and thats a BIG "if"!!) I think researchers the world over only look at their miniscule area of interest to the exclusion of everything else...... 3. The powers that be decide there is enough money in marketing the cure. I certainly am getting jaded in my old age....... Chas Last edited by chasmo; 10-27-2007 at 07:58 AM. Reason: poetic license |
|||
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
| Reply |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| BIO Conventions News: MJFox urges push to speed therapies | Parkinson's Disease | |||
| tea bag cures pink eye? | General Health Conditions & Rare Disorders | |||
| Natural Cures for Health Disasters | General Health Conditions & Rare Disorders | |||
| Stem cell 'wonder cures' warning | Parkinson's Disease | |||
paula...
okay paula - here's the entire article in bold
paula
Linear Mode
