Healthcare: ‘Valley of death’ newcomer to scientific research

[Guest guest]

NICK JACOBS | `Valley of death'

By NICK JACOBS

For The Tribune-Democrat

stown,PA,USA

http://www.tribune-democrat.com/business/local_story_334231101.html

Sharon Begley wrote an article for Newsweek Magazine titled Where

Are the Cures?

Scientists call the gulf between a biomedical discovery and new

treatment " the valley of death. " I have written about this topic

several times.

As a relative newcomer to scientific research, my journey has been

perplexing and disconcerting. Everyday articles, Web stories and

scientific papers cross my desk, touting discoveries made at the

basic science level.

My insiders began pointing out to me nearly seven years ago that

these discoveries very rarely get to the public for their care and

treatment.

Begley's article clearly identified some of the reasons behind this

gap in medical science, and most of the reasons uncovered lead back

to a broken system with both inappropriate incentives and vague

disincentives locked firmly into place.

How do we get the basic discoveries to be translated and moved into

actual treatments?

Obstacles to translational research in which studies move from the

scientist's bench to the patient's bedside are formidable – hence

the scientific community's designation as the " valley of death. "

According to the article, " The valley of death is why many promising

discoveries – genes linked to cancer and Parkinson's disease;

biochemical pathways that ravage neurons in Lou Gehrig's disease –

never move forward. "

Why are so few of the discoveries making their way to treatments and

cures? It is because our system of NIH-sponsored science is set up

to discover things; plain and simple. Once the discovery is made,

articles can be written. That is the sought-after reward because

these publications lead to more grants from the NIH, and the circle

goes round and round.

The author challenges the incoming Obama administration and Congress

to take a look at this dilemma and to begin revamping our biomedical

research system by creating what Boxer, a urologist at the

University of Miami, and Lou Weisbach, a Chicago entrepreneur, call

a " center for cures " at the NIH.

Interestingly enough, the model they endorse is exactly what was

created not far from stown, where multidisciplinary teams of

biologists, chemists, technicians and biomedical informatics

specialists work together to move a discovery to an actual cure.

Of course, with the cuts made during the Bush administration to the

NIH funds, creating anything new that is unfunded could take away

from basic research, and limit hopes for these cure discoveries.

The article explains that while the NIH budget was doubling, new-

drug approvals fell from 53 in 1996 to 18 in 2006.

The sad case, however, is that even those organizations that try to

establish cure centers are not funded by the NIH because of the

fundamental design to enhance only basic research.

The article ends with this: " I'd be willing to put up with potholes

in exchange for a new administration spending serious money to take

the discoveries taxpayers have paid for and turn them into cures. "

Nick s is president of both the Windber Medical Center and

Windber Research Institute, and the author of a new book, " Taking

the Hell Out of Healthcare: A Patient's Guide to Getting the Best

care. "