The fierce urgency of now?

Lou Weisbach, a financier and advertising executive, wrote in The Huffington Post today that President-Elect Obama should appoint an NIH Director who is "committed to curing diseases, not only studying them."

Fair enough. Translational science, propelling research insights out of the laboratory and into the clinic, should be a key focus of the NIH.

But in his ensuing screed, in which he calls for the establishment of The American Center for Cures, Weisbach displays his ignorance of science and belittles the efforts of countless biomedical researchers.

"Scientific discoveries based upon the curiosity of the individual are crucial for fundamental advances in knowledge. And this may eventually lead circuitously to improvement of health," Weisbach writes. "However, science and discovery cannot be only performed in a vacuum of moral objectivity and self-serving intellectual curiosity. There must be a place in the NIH where the discovery of knowledge is focused on preventing or curing the diseases of our loved ones."

I talk with biomedical researchers virtually every day, and I can attest that very few seem to conduct their research in the vacuums of which Weisbach writes. Even researchers studying the most minute biochemical pathways and striving to characterize the intricate and unseen behavior of cells and their contents usually draw a connection from their work to the larger picture of disease and treatment. To suggest that basic scientists have their heads in holes and only care about advancing their careers on the grounds that they've contributed to some esoteric and obtuse body of knowledge is simply insulting.

And to think that creating another layer of bureaucracy at NIH will magically bring about the cures to diseases that scientists have been studying--and trying to cure--for decades, is quixotic at best.

"[Obama] can fulfill the promise for real progress against disease, by rationalizing our vast research capabilities into action, results and hope by embracing faster progress, an American Center for Cures, and appointing visionary leaders for these critical positions," Weisbach writes. "It's time to end the ravages of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, cancers, schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis cystic fibrosis, [to] name a few."

Not only do Weisbach's comments prey upon the public's general misunderstanding of the pace of research and the impact of basic science on health and wellness, they also trump up an already unrealistic set of expectations hovering over an Obama presidency.

Obama is already expected to rescue the global economy, to improve America's foreign relations, to end our oil addiction by creating an entirely new green energy system, and to heal the deep ideological divisions that weaken our country. Why not heap on finding the cure for cancer, schizophrenia, and every other disease that has plagued mankind for millenia?

There likely is a way to speed translation of research from bench to bedside, but in my opinion, Weisbach has missed the mark and managed to be pretty insulting in doing so.

Bob, Associate Editor, The Scientist

Yes. I think that it is the greater and greater focus on results now that has been holding us back, not the other way around. Things don't happen in straight lines.

"Ignorance" is the correct characterization for Weisberg's remarks.

Creation of an "American Center for Cures" within NIH would be a monumentally bad idea.

It is an idea that hearkens back to the worst failures of the Bush-Zerhouni NIH ("Roadmap," "Biodefense," and each other politically conceived, pollitically directed, scientifically empty, and fundamentally wasteful,administrative fiat).

The foundation of the NIH is peer review. When peer review is subverted by poiltical prioritization, political set-asides, and separate, set-aside review processes, sub-par reaserach--in some cases, egregiously sub-par research--is supported, the foundation of the NIH is eroded, and the mission of the NIH is compromised.

It is time to reverse the record of failure of the Bush-Zerhouni NIH. This will require returning to a research portfolio comprising exclusively or nearly exclusively investigator-origianted projects and returning to a peer-review system in which all proposals compete equally.

The worst thing that one could do to the NIH (short of simply pulling the plug on the NIH) would be to move even more deeply into the morass of political and buresucratic prioritization that has marked the last eight years.

RHE

Creation of an "American Center for Cures" within NIH would be a monumentally bad idea.

It is an idea that hearkens back to the worst failures of the Bush-Zerhouni NIH ("Roadmap," "Biodefense," and each other politically conceived, politically directed, scientifically empty, and fundamentally wasteful, administrative fiat).

The foundation of the NIH is peer review. When peer review is subverted by political prioritization, political set-asides, and separate, set-aside review processes, sub-par research--in some cases, egregiously sub-par research--is supported, the foundation of the NIH is eroded, and the mission of the NIH is compromised.

It is time to reverse the record of failure of the Bush-Zerhouni NIH. This will require returning to a research portfolio comprising exclusively or nearly exclusively investigator-originated projects and returning to a peer-review system in which all projects compete equally.

The worst thing that one could do to the NIH (short of simply pulling the plug on the NIH) would be to move even more deeply into the morass of political and buresucratic prioritization that has marked the last eight years.

Richard H. Ebright

Sure!

EllenTS1006644 wrote:Yes. I think that it is the greater and greater focus on results now that has been holding us back, not the other way around. Things don't happen in straight lines.

From where I've been sitting, it's been my observation that for several decades now, too much NIH funding has gone to projects with "premature relevance" -- i.e., projects that leap from a tiny undeveloped new idea or discovery directly to disease related research. Most of such projects have been wastes of precious resources of time, labor and money. We need MORE fundamental information, not less, before plunging into relevant and intelligently-designed translational research that holds the possibility to cure or prevent or ameliorate diseases.

Weisbach simply doesn't understand science. Or biomedicine. (and the two are related but definitely not exactly the same thing).

Obama does not wear his underwear on the outside and cannot walk on water. Curing all the world's ills does seem to be a big ask for any human being in his first term of office. I think that the choice between 'pure' and 'applied' research really is a "both and". We need both blue sky research and practical application. Curtailing either one at the expense of the other is a bad idea. Research which does not seem urgent or practical right now may truly provide a cure for Alzheimers (and we are unlikely to find unusual solutions unless we look in 'unusual' places i.e. by today's applied criteria we need support so called 'unpractical' research)

The NSF should exist to fund discovery science, whether in biology or physics. The NIH should focus on projects that have a reasonable probability of success of treating, diagnosing, or curing human disease within, say, 5 to 10 years. Industry should be responsible for more immediately addressable problems.

The fact that NIH funded scientists researching obscure oddities can justify their work by citing disease relevance only attests to their ability to write grants not to their ability to draw meaningful connections. The justifications of disease relevance offered on Specific Aims pages are often factually meaningless fantasies that can sway only Study Section reviewers with a vested interest in the study area, since it is their own.