A cure in our lifetimes?

[SharonLondon]

"Blood glucose sensing tattoos"?! Wow, that sounds fascinating! I must Google it!

 

[Sid Bonkers]

I am not convinced Sid that DUK and the universities are unaffected by politics or by big business. Surely everyone and everything is . I always think of DUK as a quango and university research has to be sponsored.......

I believe that every registrar has to do a year in a lab doing clinical trials prior to becoming a consultant as well as charity and government funding. The fact is that drug companies do not look for cures as curing is not their business they research new drugs because drugs are their business.

To suggest that charities like cancer research and diabetes uk are in some way in league with the phama companies is ridiculous IMO

 

[xyzzy]

I am not convinced Sid that DUK and the universities are unaffected by politics or by big business. Surely everyone and everything is . I always think of DUK as a quango and university research has to be sponsored.......

I believe that every registrar has to do a year in a lab doing clinical trials prior to becoming a consultant as well as charity and government funding. The fact is that drug companies do not look for cures as curing is not their business they research new drugs because drugs are their business.

To suggest that charities like cancer research and diabetes uk are in some way in league with the phama companies is ridiculous IMO

Now you've all gone and got me started again. Haven't had to write one of these in weeks :x

Thanks Sid for standing up for us scientists. :wave:

It really is quite offensive to us when people suggest that we can be corrupted to the extent that a whole scientific research team could be bribed to hold back on positive results. The whole ethos of science is to make progress not to make money.

Let me try and explain why using an actual case of a big pharma attempting to do what some of you have suggested.

Back a few years ago there was if you remember something called the Human Genome Project. It was a world wide collaboration to map all the DNA in humans. Its results would be a database that other scientists could use as an immensely powerful research tool for future medical research.

In very simple terms a US corporation run by a guy called Ventner decided to usurp the research when the US government decided it would withdraw its portion of funding the project. Ventners corporation came in and effectively said it would take over the funding on the condition that it ended up owning the database and would then charge other scientists for access to the data. The US government stood by and did nothing causing outrage in the general scientific community. So what happenned?

At the meeting that Ventner planned to announce his coup d'état in front of the worlds press a man from the UK who worked for a charity called the Welcome Trust stood up and said the following.

"I represent a charitable scientific organisation called the Welcome Trust. We have access to funds in excess of 250 BILLION dollars and will use it all if necessary to fund the ENTIRE human genome research project if you force us to AND we we make all the research and data completely freely available to everyone"

Ventner closed up shop pretty soon afterwards.

So with players like the Welcome Trust around who can take on and defeat both large corporations and even the US government there is very little chance of any corporation ever being able to hide the results of research.

 

[mattr]

Blood Glucose Sensing Tattoos!

Glucose Monitor Phones!

Looking forward to it!

 

[Unbeliever]

I am not convinced Sid that DUK and the universities are unaffected by politics or by big business. Surely everyone and everything is . I always think of DUK as a quango and university research has to be sponsored.......

I believe that every registrar has to do a year in a lab doing clinical trials prior to becoming a consultant as well as charity and government funding. The fact is that drug companies do not look for cures as curing is not their business they research new drugs because drugs are their business.

To suggest that charities like cancer research and diabetes uk are in some way in league with the phama companies is ridiculous IMO

I didn't suggest anyone was in league with anyone and I am certainly not attacking scientists. Why so defensive?

I was just making the general point that true independence is difficult. DUK prety well have to toe the official line.
All research in universities requires funding surely? This must involve sponsorship.

Presumably Big Pharma employs scientists ??

 

[noblehead]

Blood Glucose Sensing Tattoos!

Glucose Monitor Phones!

Looking forward to it!

Looking forward to it too, anything that makes life easier gets the thumbs-up from me :thumbup:

 

[xyzzy]

I am not convinced Sid that DUK and the universities are unaffected by politics or by big business. Surely everyone and everything is . I always think of DUK as a quango and university research has to be sponsored.......

Sorry unbeliever you and I normally agree on most things but the bottom line is that regardless of where the research is done and sponsored by whoever that research is done by scientists and as such if those scientists come up with something new then before any of their work would be taken in the slightest bit seriously it would have to be peer reviewed by other independent scientists. A Pharma certainly couldn't get any new drug licensed for human use without that peer review process being done. It's the way science polices itself to ensure corruption and falsification of results doesn't happen.

I've also noticed some posters are going "if they were serious there'd be new drugs". Thats a completely flawed argument. It implies that if anybody wants to invent something it can just happen if you throw enough money at it.

Human brains don't work like that do they?

They need to get that one moment of insight into solving a problem and that may take years if not decades of "thinking" until one smart scientist finally puts it together in a eureka moment. If it wasn't that way then you or I could just go well I think I'll invent a cure for cancer today or solve global warming or double the processing power of a computer or create a new drug to cure diabetes.

Doesn't work like that does it?

 

[borofergie]

It's the way science polices itself to ensure corruption and falsification of results doesn't happen.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0005738

Of course it goes on. Scientists compete for research funding, and are under pressure to produce meaningful results. It's very difficult to say "we've spent several million pounds of your money, but we can't draw any conclusions (or worse the wrong conclusions) from the study." Academia is also based around reputation, sometimes it's difficult to publish results that don't support a hypothesis that you've been supporting for half your career.

Some good examples here:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/noti ... 3-177.html

An investigation conducted by the University found that Dr. Stricker falsified data for a manuscript and a PHS-supported publication reporting research on AIDS.

In the manuscript, Dr. Stricker selectively suppressed data that did not support his hypothesis, and reported consistently positive data whereas only one of four experiments had produced positive results. The falsified data was used as the basis for a grant application to the National Institutes of Health.

An investigation conducted by Harvard found that Dr. Lee, a former post-doctoral fellow at the Joslin Diabetes Center, fabricated and falsified data in research on diabetes supported by the National Eye Institute. Primary data was missing for almost half of the figures and tables in a series of published papers and manuscripts prepared by Dr. Lee.

Many instances of data fabrication and falsification were found, including presenting data for cell counts that were never performed, indicating that multiple data points were determined when in fact only a single data point was obtained, eliminating the highest or lowest values in sets of experimental readings, alteration or transposition of data to achieve a desired experimental result, and misrepresentation of the time intervals at which data was collected.

I'm not saying that it's the norm, or even widespread, but it's silly to suggest that it never occurs. Scientists are just a morally fallible as the rest of us.

 

[xyzzy]

It's the way science polices itself to ensure corruption and falsification of results doesn't happen.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0005738
Of course it goes on.

Some good examples here:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/noti ... 3-177.html

An investigation conducted by the University found that Dr. Stricker falsified data for a manuscript and a PHS-supported publication reporting research on AIDS.

An investigation conducted by Harvard found that Dr. Lee, a former post-doctoral fellow at the Joslin Diabetes Center, fabricated...

I'm not saying that it's the norm, or even widespread, but it's silly to suggest that it never occurs. Scientists are just a morally fallible as the rest of us.

Never said it didn't occur and specifically said about policing results so thanks for proving my point borofergie by finding all those examples of policing, shows science is working as it should be :thumbup:

 

[Unbeliever]

I always assume that scientists do the science and it is then up to others to decide whether to finance the development of
particular aspects . This is no reflection upon scientists as a class or in fact , upon anyone. Yes money rules and Big Pharma has money I completely agree wih Borofergie about the pressure upon scientists.

I remember being struck some years ago by the story of the French Dr who tried to prove thatHomeopathy worked and was accused {and I think convicted } of falsifying his results. he seemed to me to be mainly motivated by his own overwhelming belief in homeopathy and his desire to help people. I was so sorry for him !

We are all subject to the same pressures in life whatever we do. It must sometimes take a great deal of courage to give bad news t.
o sponsors . I am often reassured to read that trials have been halted and drugs wihdrawn in spite of opposition.

We have to be realistic. Noone and nothing is all good or all bad. Big Pharma must do more good than harm overall.
We all see these things subjectively.

I am a pragmatic unbeliever - a realist.

 

[xyzzy]

Now hang on a minute Unbeliever and Borofergie

The debate was if Pharma Corps could hold back research on finding a cure for diabetes and I attempted with the Welcome Trust example (who are a CHARITY) to show that there are ways that science will defeat evil corporations and maintain integrity for the benefit of everyone. I've also pointed out that likewise giving links that show crooked scientists being exposed for what they are just shows exactly how scientists police themselves so that's no bad thing.

How many other sectors out there expose themselves to such public outing of frauds, crooks and charlatans in their own midst?

The debate was not if scientists are perfectly moral people that's a pointless argument as patently they're not. You are changing the goalposts and not answering my initial criticism.

 

[borofergie]

The debate was not if scientists are perfectly moral people that's a pointless argument as patently they're not. You are changing the goalposts and not answering my initial point.

Spoilsport.

 

[xyzzy]

The debate was not if scientists are perfectly moral people that's a pointless argument as patently they're not. You are changing the goalposts and not answering my initial point.

Spoilsport.

Yep sorry :lol: