Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Sunday August 28 2016, @08:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the walk-before-you-run dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Clinical trials and translational medicine have certainly given people hope and rapid pathways to cures for some of humankind's most troublesome diseases, but now is not the time to overlook the power of basic research, says UC Santa Barbara neuroscientist Kenneth S. Kosik.

In fact, as he points out in an article published in the journal Science -- along with coauthors Terry Sejnowski, Marcus Raichle, Aaron Ciechanover and David Baltimore -- supporting fundamental cell biology research into neurodegeneration may be the key to accelerating understanding of neurodegenerative and so-called "incurable" diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

"My point here is that what we really have to do is take the longer view and get a very fundamental understanding of these diseases to make inroads in treatment," said Kosik, who is UCSB's Harriman Professor of Neuroscience in the Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, and also the director of the campus's Neuroscience Research Institute.

[Continues...]

In contrast to applied science which, in the field of neuroscience and medicine, concentrates more on therapies and technologies used to treat particular conditions, basic research into cell biology of neurodegeneration is the discipline that fuels understanding of why and how the basic living units of the brain and nervous system function, or don't. Studying a model organism such as a fruit fly or a worm may not have the more visible impact on neurodegenerative disease that human clinical trials have, Kosik said, but it could provide a strong foundation for treatments that go beyond single diseases, and that may generate tools for early detection and prevention. Without building a foundation of basic science, he argues, scientists can find themselves down the path of pursuing "trendy" and sometimes fruitless research, or grasping at straws for safe, but relatively ineffective therapies.

"All funders -- and scientists too -- feel the pressure of trying to do something for people that have very serious diseases. The clock is ticking for them, we feel compassion for these people and we really want to help," said Kosik, whose own efforts investigating the basis of Alzheimer's disease have led him to decades of clinical work with an extended family of Colombians living with a very early-onset form of the disease with genetic origins.

It's understandable, Kosik said, for scientists in the clinical setting, and even for philanthropists and federal decisionmakers, to want to push resources into rapid pathways to cures and treatments with less consideration for basic science. That trend became apparent at the U.S. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, where, from 1997 to 2012, basic research funding by the agency fell from 87 to 71 percent. Elsewhere, at the National Institutes of Health, Kosik says in the article, "a discouraging funding environment drives students and young scientists away," instead of attracting the next generation of scientists with the opportunity for groundbreaking discoveries in the field.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Francis Collins Retains Position as Director of the National Institutes of Health 6 comments

Francis Collins will remain the director of the National Institutes of Health, for now:

Ending weeks of speculation, President-elect Donald Trump has asked National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins to remain in his position. It is not clear for how long. "We just learned that Dr. Collins has been held over by the Trump administration," an NIH spokesperson said in a statement. "We have no additional details at this time."

Collins, a geneticist who has headed the $32 billion NIH for the past 8 years, has been campaigning to keep his job and met with Trump last week. On Wednesday, he told a reporter at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he still didn't know what his fate would be. But although Collins had the support of key Republicans in Congress, he has been one of several candidates for the NIH post, including Representative Andy Harris (R–MD).

Related: NIH Won't Fund Human Germline Modification
Group of Scientists and Bioethicists Back Genetic Modification of Human Embryos
Human-Animal Chimeras are Gestating on U.S. Research Farms
NIH Plans To Lift Ban On Research Funds For Human-Animal Chimera Embryos
Neuroscientists Stand Up for Basic Cell Biology Research
Major Biomedical Research Funding Bill Sails Through US House


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @08:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @08:48PM (#394324)

    If you wanted funding, you should have joined the military. What we have here is a war of ideology. Islam is evil, and Muslims need killing. You eggheads don't get it. We have all the technology we need to kill Muslims. We don't need science anymore. A war of ideology needs only obedience. For a bunch of smart people, you are incredibly fucking stupid.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @09:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @09:48PM (#394332)

      The Cold War is over, jerks! We're not in a space race with the Ruskies! It's asymmetric warfare, we have nukes! and the Ragheads have carbombs!

      You want science to become relevant again, you start a war with China.

  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday August 28 2016, @11:24PM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Sunday August 28 2016, @11:24PM (#394350) Homepage Journal

    Congresscritters don't read Science.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @11:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @11:41PM (#394356)

    Clicking through to the actual article I see they hold up cancer research as a model of success.[1] This is a huge mistake since no one even knows how to replicate 25% of these papers, even after paying two phds full time for two weeks on each to try to find out. [2] Then of the papers it is possible to attempt replicating, the same results are attained only like 10% of the time.[3] This is all before we consider the percent of time results have been misinterpreted. The true scope of these problems apparently is not yet recognized by the research community.

    [1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6302/872 [sciencemag.org]
    [2] http://www.nature.com/news/cancer-reproducibility-project-scales-back-ambitions-1.18938 [nature.com]
    [3] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html [nature.com]