Obama announcing $5 BILLION in research grants for cures for diseases

[berni_mccoy]

This is the single largest investment of grant money to biomedical research in history.

Live stream here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/

As a parent of two children with chronic disease, I thank you Mr. President with all my heart.

On edit: the money comes from the Recovery Act and will be managed through NIH research grants targeting Cancer, Heart Disease, Autism and other diseases.

[Captain Hilts]

1. GOOD! This generation's moon shot. nt

[LeftishBrit]

2. Excellent news!

Hoping for some major breakthroughs.

[Renew Deal]

3. Just $5 Billion! What a disgrace!!!!!!

/malcontent off

[berni_mccoy]

4. I hope that was sarcasm

Sorry, but I need to know with the insanity going on around here lately.

[Renew Deal]

25. It was.

It's the "it's just a proclamation" response that was bound to come. :banghead:

[Barack_America]

8. The entire yearly budget of the NIH is $30 billion.

So $5 billion is highly significant.

[berni_mccoy]

12. $5 billion is the largest investment in research for disease cures in history.

The NIH does a lot more than research cures.

[Barack_America]

14. I'm aware.

They write my paycheck. ;)

[berni_mccoy]

37. Then you deserve a big thanks for your service.

:toast:

[Barack_America]

40. No I don't. I owe a big debt of gratitude to my government and US taxpayers...

...who have funded my education.

Which is why I am planning to dedicate my career to treating veterans and researching their health care needs.

To whom much is given, much is expected.

And with that, I really should stop slacking off and get back to work (I'm writing my dissertation these days, and DU is a treat that keeps my brain from frying).

[Yuugal]

5. Awesome!

Now there will be more treatments someday to go bankrupt over. Woooooohoooooo!

[berni_mccoy]

6. It's posts like this that have made this place such a downer lately.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but damn, this place just has to broadcast the depression doesn't it.

[Yuugal]

7. I'd rather be a realist than a cheerleader nt

[berni_mccoy]

9. I'm no cheerleader but you are a complainophile.

[Barack_America]

10. Yeah, like Penicillin!

Who the fuck can afford penicillin?

[Romulox]

13. +1. It's important to tell the truth, but people will often hate you for it.

"Complainophile" is not a valid response to your comment.

[Barack_America]

17. Problem is, it's not the truth.

Research funded by the NIH shapes everything we do in medicine and information gathered from studies funded by the NIH must be made public, when it reaches a publishable state.

The people these grants will go to are paid to do their research and then give it away. In the rare cases that research results in a patent, the scientist gets a small piece of it, with the majority going to the university or institute. Privately operated, for profit research institutes are not eligible for NIH dollars, to my knowledge.

[Romulox]

19. He didn't dispute that. He commented that the average American will have to go bankrupt

to take advantage of any of this taxpayer funded research. That is the truth.

"The people these grants will go to are paid to do their research and then give it away."

To the for-profit pharma industry. :hi:

[Barack_America]

21. Not all research is pharma-related. In fact, most of it isn't.

And I can assure you that no one in big pharma has used any of the research I've published, to date.

My most recent stuff they could be able to use, but they're going to have to spend a lot of money to get there, 'cause it's not useful to them yet and I'm done with it.

[scheming daemons]

24. And you'd be the first one bitching if Obama had nixed the money

[Maru Kitteh]

11. I was THRILLED to see that this morning! Way to go Mr. President!

[Romulox]

15. Why should the government fund the research, and insurance co's reap the profit?

If the research is nationalized, why not the care? :hi:

[berni_mccoy]

18. Great point. That should be brought up in the debate for certain.

[Barack_America]

20. Huh?

You seem to be unaware of how NIH-funded biomedical research operates in this country.

[Romulox]

27. Private pharmaceutical companies and their ilk don't profit from NIH funded research?

Explain it to me then!

[Barack_America]

29. Directly, the answer is generally "no".

Indirectly, whomever reads the published research is free to do what they want with it. In the past, it was generally only pharmaceutical companies who were equipped to take research to the next level, but a growing trend has been for universities and the NIH itself to build their own core facilities. The NIH has now generated a library of millions of chemical compounds that academic researchers are able to use in their studies.

Professors receiving NIH grants are expected to keep themselves free from entanglements with pharmaceutical companies under the "conflict of interests" disclosure rules.

[Romulox]

30. This paper says that 92% of the cancer drugs approved by the FDA were developed by NIH

over the period of 1955-1992. All of these drugs are sold back to the consumer for a profit.

I admit to not being an expert in this field, so I'd be interested in your assessment.

The National Institutes of Health are the jewel of American science, producing lifesaving drugs of enormous
value to our nation and the world. From 1955 to 1992, for example, 92% of drugs approved by the FDA to treat
cancer were researched and developed by NIH. However, much of the financial value of these drugs is given
away to pharmaceutical corporations in an outrageous example of corporate welfare.

http://www.webguild.com/sentinel/Tamoxifen%20Study.pdf

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:u0Ohtp0wtsQJ:www.webguild.com/sentinel/Tamoxifen%2520Study.pdf+nih+funded+research+private+profits&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNFMMsHVWjBY8oj1ut88tbyC50Ircg

[Barack_America]

36. Again, most of the research conducted by the NIH has nothing to do with pharmaceuticals.

And, once published, everyone is privy to the results.

That's just how science works. Any other way and we'd all be wasting money repeating each others experiments.

You seem to be arguing that the NIH should get funding for research (funding that creates 10's of thousands of middle class American jobs, I might add), but that the govt. should nationalize the pharmaceutical industry.

These are two separate issues, IMO.

If you want to argue that funding for any research that could lead to a drug discovery should be stopped until the govt. makes the drugs, that's fine. It's not practical, but it's rational. But please stop confusing the fact that particularl funding represents a small number of total NIH dollars.

[Romulox]

42. Just the profitable parts. That was the complaint.

"You seem to be arguing that the NIH should get funding for research (funding that creates 10's of thousands of middle class American jobs, I might add), but that the govt. should nationalize the pharmaceutical industry."

There is zero value is debating a point that you imagine someone is making. I was trying to determine if the research activities of the NIH, if monetized, redounded to the benefit of public or private interests. It seems like the complaint is accurate--public research, private profit. No need to lay a smokescreen about stopping drug discovery. If you support this, own it. :hi:

[Barack_America]

47. What exactly are you arguing for then?

Please forgive me for trying to figure it out for myself.

That we should stop researching disease?
That the govt. should stop providing grants to research disease?
That we should stop publishing our findings so pharmaceutical companies can't use them?

What is it about the average activities of a NIH-funded scientist has you so upset?

Here's what we do:
1). We write a lot of grants hoping one will get funded
2). We conduct the experiments described in the grant
3). We teach graduate students and medical students basic science
4). We train graduate students to perform experiments and analyze data
5). We present our findings in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences
6). We earn a middle class wage on which we support our families
7). If we're really lucky we find something that has a direct bearing on human disease (if not, hopefully the person who picks up where we left off will)

Please enlighten me which of these activities you have a problem with.

[Romulox]

49. I am wondering how the public funding/private profit model can be justified in light of the current

health care debate.

Why not try to respond to the points and questions I make, rather than the ones you anticipate? :shrug:

"Please enlighten me which of these activities you have a problem with."

Well, my first problem is that you elided right over the part I was asking about: namely, the part where private pharmaceutical companies (and allied tradesmen) profit from this research. I don't think it's fair to answer that question with "we should stop researching disease?". :hi:

[Barack_America]

51. But pharma does not profit off of my research, nor does it profit off of 99%...

...of the research produced by NIH funding.

Producing a drug is simply not the end goal of most research. We are interested in the basic mechanisms of human existence and how they go awry.

So if you want to discuss that 1% of NIH funding that does result in drug profit, we can and I would agree that there are problems with this, particularly with pharma not being expected to at least pay the govt. back for research that benefits them.

I personally feel that frustration with the way the 1% is spent is not worthy of condemning the entire agency's spending.

Here's a link to the NIH's budget so you can see what they spend their money on.
http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm

[Romulox]

52. According to the NIH, it's biggest expenditures are "Clinical Trials" and "Clinical Research"

That sounds like applied science, not simply research into "the basic mechanisms of human existence..." My question was about how the resulting medical technology is licensed, and for whose benefit.

[Barack_America]

53. Impossible to say...

Clinical Trials could include lots of things from pharmaceutical trials to stem cells to viral therapy, etc. Basically anything therapeutic. Some would benefit pharma, some would not.

You can look through active clinical trials in the country here:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/search/map/click?map.x=158&map.y=171

Clinical Research is a more broad category and basically includes any research involving actual humans. So, for example, a study on handwashing and the prevention of C. diff. transmission would be clinical research. So too would the clinical trials described above.

One of the main advantages of the govt. funding such research, other than presumably improving treatment and patient care, is that they get to set the standards for how the experiments will be done. Because they are in part footing the bill, the government gets to enact strict standards to any clinical research to protect the interests of those in the study. It's quite a rigorous process. I frankly would not trust research not subject to this oversight.

Here's an example of the process:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/charts/checklistshs.htm#hsgen

[berni_mccoy]

28. He's comparing the public funding of a cure to the costs of private insurance.

I think it's a great contrast.

People are willing to allow the gov't to fund the research for cures, but not to cover health care?

[Barack_America]

31. Actually, it's similar to the public option.

Government doesn't run biomedical research, it's conducted at universities and institutes across the country.

But the govt. does decide what it's going to pay for and that keeps researchers focused on doing pertinent research and getting the most bang for the buck, so to speak.

The fact that the govt. pays for it also allows them to set aside considerable money for US citizens only.

The result? A productive system that produces results unparalleled in the world, really...and provides 10s of thousands of middle class jobs for Americans in the process.

It's a great system and I really hope more American students start considering a career in the biomedical sciences.

[Romulox]

33. The insurance cos are the middle man, and pharma companies also profit greatly from the arrangement.

Thanks for your post.

[BlooInBloo]

16. One wonders if the same DUers against this, would have been complaining...

had Obama *nixed* the money.

[scheming daemons]

23. +10000.....

You know they would be.

[BlooInBloo]

34. It's true - I wasn't *really* wondering.

[Barack_America]

22. People bitching the US govt. giving money to the one field the US still leads the world in...

...and is essentially socialized with rampant "American only" clauses written into its funding.

That is so rich.

:rofl:

[seemunkee]

26. My wife has been working on opening trials with recovery money

She's been swamped with work trying to get them open as fast as possible.

[tsuki]

32. Another give away to Big Pharma, or will it go to the teaching medical schools?

[berni_mccoy]

35. The money goes to research projects conducted by both academic and professional research firms

But there are restrictions on their relationship to pharma companies.

[tsuki]

46. Great.

[Barack_America]

39. It goes to my paycheck and my husband's paycheck...

And to our thousands of colleagues that work at our institutions (mine, a medical school; his, a research hospital).

And that story is repeated hundreds of times over around the country.

That's where NIH dollars go.

Do pharmaceutical companies capitalize off of the findings? Yes, but that is because our government does not synthesize and manufacture drugs, not because there is anything wrong with researching disease.

[slipslidingaway]

43. How does the data exclusivity amendment in the proposed bills...

play into this in the future???

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/july/senate_help_amendmen.php

"...Executive Session on the Affordable Health Choices Act

U.S. Senate HELP Committee
July 13, 2009

Consideration of the Enzi/Hatch/Hagan amendment on establishing a data exclusivity period of 12 years for biotech innovation

Sen. Orin Hatch: I don’t know a biotech company that isn’t for this bill, for this 12 year data exclusivity.

****

Sen. Kay Hagan: These individuals are out there looking for venture capital to obviously help them get these drugs to market… In order for our country to maintain this innovation and this research we need 12 years of data exclusivity.


...Sen. Tom Harkin: Keep in mind what we’re talking about here. We’re not talking about patents. Everybody gets a 20 year patent… What we’re talking about here is data, data exclusivity… How do you get that data? You get it through FDA supervised trials… Where do they do those clinical trials? Academic health centers. Who supports academic health centers? Our taxpayers… When should that data be released so that another company out there, some other entrepreneurs, can look at the data and say… I’ll bet if we changed this and did this, we might come up with a new formulation that might actually help something else. They’re still going to have to go through their clinical trials… At least they’ll be able to look at the data. If you don’t do that that means that the company can sit on that data for 12 years. Then they let the data out. Clinical trials will take another 7 years or more, so you’re going to have at least a whole 20 year run in there… before anyone can ever surface with anything even comparable to what that drug or that biologic is...


...Sen. Sherrod Brown: You know what we’ve not talked about, Mr. Chairman? We’re not talking about how much these biologics are costing patients. Let me give you some numbers. (examples)… 48 thousand dollars… 20 thousand dollars …100 thousand dollars. You know what the average wage in my state is? 46 thousand dollars… If we do this giveaway to the drug industry, this giveaway to the biologic companies, it means profits are up for them, it means executive salaries are up for them, it means we can all feel good, but let’s think about the patients, let’s think of the patient with breast cancer who has got to spend 1000 dollars a week… the patient with colon cancer who’s got to spend 2000 dollars a week… What kind of progress is that, Mr. Chairman?

****

The data exclusivity amendment passed by a vote of 16 to 7, with several Democrats voting in support..."

[Barack_America]

48. Sorry, I, like the majority of NIH scientists, am so far removed from clinical trials....

...and drug discovery, that I don't have personal experience with this.

But, withholding data generated from studies using NIH data would be unparalleled and, in my view, wrong. That's the basic principle of receiving NIH funding, they pay for the work, but everybody owns the findings.

There is an argument that NIH dollars should not be used to conduct clinical trials in academic centers, but it was always my understanding that big pharma paid for most of this. I very well could be wrong.

Just as an FYI, here's the NIH's organizational chart. As you can see it is a very sprawling organization. I am funded by NINDS in a basic science lab. The only giveaway I see personally are research tools developed in academic laboratories that get turned over to private companies for distribution and profit. This is a rip off generated by the NIH previously having no system in place to do this themselves. They are working to correct that. Invitrogen is our industry's Halliburton, but the NIH seems to be working hard to decrease their market share.

http://www1.od.nih.gov/oma/manualchapters/management/1123/nih.pdf

[tsuki]

45. That is what I wanted to hear. Sorry, I don't trust big give-aways. I

always wonder about the Corporate tie in.

I want the 5 billion to go to places like UAB, Syracuse, places that attract people like Jonas Salk who look for cures.

They can double the amount to places like that.

[Barack_America]

50. Nor do I. And there is always a corporate tie-in, even with science...

I'm not going to lie and say there isn't. Republicans and their masters have devised a way to feed off of every govt. teat.

But the point is that the VAST majority of this $5 billion will go to fund the salaries of thousands upon thousands of researchers working for middle class wages. Researches whose work might just unlock important clues to human disease. This is in stark contrast to the ridiculous sums of money that went to Wall Street, an industry that employs far less people and produces nothing of value.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. May all the haters get sick, suffer, and die...

the day before these diseases are cured thanks to the funding Obama just announced.

[Barack_America]

41. Never did I think I would have to defend NIH funding on DU.

DU never ceases to amaze.

[Rude Dog]

44. You didn't expect this?

50% of the userbase here is people who will find something, ANYTHING, to complain about. After all, everything that has ever happened EVER is really just proof that their eternal pessimism is the One Real Truth.

[Odin2005]

54. I see the Alt-Med nuts are whining.

:eyes: