Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
call4552 ·
Aug 28, 2011 at 8:56pm
I just finished reading Mark Steyn's new book, After America: Get Ready for Armageddon, and was struck by one of the main themes throughout the book: America is no longer a country that strives for life changing advances but one that is happy and content with the current path. He mentions that the last life changing advance was the Polio vaccine. How can this be fixed? Are we a country that no longer wants to take chances and we only want what is safe? Imagine if there was a cure for diabetes or for cancer. We have been spending billions (or trillions) over the years and don't have a lot to show for it. What can be done to make this country the land of medical and technological advancement like it used to be? ATM's don't count.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
Unfortunately the disease cure biz is highly lucrative. Call me a cynic, but big bucks cure seekers must fear the possibility that they might actually find a cue and put themselves out of business.
When Jonas Salk developed his polio vaccine in the early 1950s, he rejoiced and blessed America with his accomplishments. Of course, the bucks were a lot smaller and personal integrity a lot stronger than these days. Even then, the March of Dimes had to quickly refocus on birth defects to keep the big bucks infrastructure in place. Many good reasons for them to do so then, but today I am dubious of the sacrificial efforts of five and six figure execs and their equally well paid research directors.
Sep '10
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
We would not want to attract the best and brightest into medical research. It would make a lot more sense to have the poor and uneducated doing it. Then we would not have to worry about their motives. Have you considered becoming a Marxist?
Dec '10
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
How many people sued Salk for adverse reactions? I'm very serious.
You cannot do anything in this country without exposing yourself to tort liabilities and there is no such thing as a jury of your peers. Lawyers routinely dismiss potential jurors that have any opinions or are the least bit informed on any subject; on average, jury pools now most closely resemble Jerry Springer audiences.
In this environment, whom in this country still wants to develop or manufacture a product? I don't want my fate judged by American Idol voters.
Feb '11
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
Computers haven't changed Mark Steyn's life? What is he doing, still using a quill to write with? And the internet hasn't changed his life? Unlikely.
Virus- and bacterial-borne diseases such as polio are not such problems because of medical advances. Diabetes and cancer are DNA-related diseases because we live longer as a result of viral and bacterial diseases no longer killing us at early ages. DNA-related diseases are much more complicated. To think that means there will be no cure or that the cure will not be discovered is far too pessimistic. Whether it occurs in the US is irrelevant. Invention of the germ theory of disease was after all from the minds of a German and a Frenchman. Where the discovery occurs is irrelevant.
Edited on Aug 28, 2011 at 1:55pmJun '10
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
I guess it depends on one's point of view. I like Mark Steyn as much as the next conservative but he may be wrong on this, if this is indeed how he characterizes the current state of the medicine. To wit, a very quick search yields this article from FoxNews on medical breakthroughs in the last ten years. With the completion of the genome project and soon the potential to develop genetic therapies based on the work of adult stem cells it's more than probable that we are on the verge of a remarkable age for more medical breakthroughs not less. The new field of neuroplasticity also indicates that the brain can be reprogrammed to deal with previously thought debilitating conditions possibly including strokes, Alzheimers, Autistic Spectrum Disorders and even blindness.
All that said, it would also help if the negative cultural stereotype of scientists as a dogmatic and private members only club was also dispelled and children were more properly exposed to the wonders of nature including the vastness of the universe, the real age of the Earth and the mountain ranges of genetic, geological, radiometric and fossil evidence that supports...(fill in the blank). :-)
Oct '10
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
liberal jim
We would not want to attract the best and brightest into medical research. It would make a lot more sense to have the poor and uneducated doing it. Then we would not have to worry about their motives. Have you considered becoming a Marxist? · Aug 28 at 1:47pm
Government agencies have co-opted most of the basic medical research in the US. You appear to be asserting that government ownership of the means of researching and advancing medicine is a government responsibility. And of course, government always attracts the best and brightest, as we all know.
Who is the Marxist here?????
May '10
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
I love Mark, but he needs to stick to Broadway and demography (though Spengler has some issues with the demography situation as well).
Viruses such as polio are quite easy to create vaccines to block, by using and stimulating the immune system. Diabetes Type 1 is a failure of the pancreas, and is cured the same way as we cure kidney failure- by transplanting around 500,000 islet cells in line with the liver and loading up on drugs against graft vs. host disease.
Cancer is hundreds of different diseases (for example, lymphoma is at least 30 different cancers) resulting from failure of correct replication for a huge number of interrelated reasons. Once we have sorted out the exact function of each of about 300,000 proteins, and also recorded the interaction effects, we will be able to address both cancer and transplant rejection- including xeno-x-plants (currently, there is a pig-to-monkey diabetes x-plant project on-going).
Edited on Aug 28, 2011 at 7:49pmApr '11
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
I must say I haven't read Mr. Styne's book, but the idea that medical research has slowed down is off base. As people have mentioned its hard to treat genetic disorders (Type I Diabetes) as for Type II diabetes the best cure for that is a healthy life style, its rise is due to increase in obesity, and high sugar foods. As for cancer. I'm glad that some one mentioned that "Cancer" is not actually a real disease it's a catch all term for uncontrolled cell growth. The causes of which can be numerous. 50 years most cancers were probably terminal, now many cancers have high rates of early detection and treatment. Thanks to government funded research by the NIH and NSF.
People thinking of bashing the government funded research should know that most key discoveries of the genes and pathways involved in cancer formation were described by people studying organisms like fruit flies and yeast at universities. They don't make money of that because they published their work allowing others to build off of it. Companies don't publish their work they guard it, but that doesn't progress science free publishing does.
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
As in other highly regulated industries (education, anyone?), healthcare is trapped by regulation and reimbursement in an unsustainable model. Too much money is dedicated to improving absolute therapeutic capability instead of developing systems aimed at realizing value from the therapeutic capability we already have. Type 2 diabetes can be treated effectively, but a better pill isn't the answer.
We need business model innovation in healthcare more than we need new molecules.
May '10
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
Don't worry. If there's money in it, the Chinese will do it.
Mar '11
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
Mr Steyn gets his gloomy outlook from the UK (as do I).
But medical research in the UK is one of the few surviving industries, and a cure for diabetes or cancer is somewhat more likely to come from there than from the US - though, of course, "big pharma" between the two countries is closely coupled.
That phrase "big pharma" is the clue to the "liberals'" hate for it, which is maybe what Mr Steyn is referring to, as well as its impending demise if Obamacare takes over.
As others have commented, type II diabetes, by far the most prevalent type, is rather easily cured (or, better, avoided) by not eating so much sugar.
Sep '10
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
raycon
liberal jim
We would not want to attract the best and brightest into medical research. It would make a lot more sense to have the poor and uneducated doing it. Then we would not have to worry about their motives. Have you considered becoming a Marxist? · Aug 28 at 1:47pm
Government agencies have co-opted most of the basic medical research in the US. You appear to be asserting that government ownership of the means of researching and advancing medicine is a government responsibility. And of course, government always attracts the best and brightest, as we all know.
Who is the Marxist here????? · Aug 28 at 3:21pm
There was no mention of the government in either the original port or you comment or mine. But now I am asserting that government ownership is a good thing?? Your original comment led me to think you have something against making a profit(lucrative) which I believe Marx had a problem with also.
Dec '10
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
Thanks to the others who remarked that the prevention (and even cure) of Type II Diabetes is at everyone's fingertips via an adjusted diet. Special props do need to go to the government, though, for being complicit in obscuring from the public what the nature of those dietary adjustments are: Eat less sugar and refined carbohydrates, and don't worry if calories from saturated fat take up a surprising percentage of your macronutrient intake. There are essential fats without which we cannot live. We will also die if we don't eat protein. There are no essential carbohydrates.
As for the sidebar issue regarding government: Publicly funded basic research is a good thing. It is, in fact, one of the few things-- along with infrastructure development-- for which massive public funding can be put to most excellent use. There are problems with the funding mechanisms, but that is a tactical problem. Not a strategic/ideological one.
Mar '11
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
Mark Steyn, it seems to me, is an excellent commentator on our passing political and social scene. It also seems to me that his book is an excellent demonstration of the old comment that any analogy pushed too far breaks down.
On the one hand it appears that Carroll Quigley was right. Western Civilization has come to the end of a cycle. We do have a group wanting to relax, eat the seed corn and sink into a new Dark Age. Some of those folks work at the FDA. There are others that we could point at.
Still as others have pointed out there is another group busily at work picking this civilization up and moving it forward again. Frankly, I believe we have a new Renaissance shaping up.
Ron.
Feb '11
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
I agree with Steyn, maybe we are just pessimists. This short blurb doesn't get the idea across, you really need to read the book, a thought experiment with a time machine stopping around 1900, 1950, 1970ish, now, future etc. I believe we are fundamentally regressing as does Steyn, he also asserts we could not currently put a person on the moon.
I have been in Tech since Reagan was president, frankly I'm amazed how impressed some of you non-techies are with what I consider gizmos, much of this is NOT increasing real productivity. Maybe a boon to the intellectual biz (see Dr. Sowells book) but so what, IT is a mess, mission/biz performance is generally decreasing. Talking to my daughter about her mac book maintenance, the fundamental OS was developed in 1969. When Salk cured polio at my alma mater, it was like him and 3 grad students in a dingy basement? Moon launch Von Braun and 12 (exageration!) hard-core ENGINEERS, I was in a course where they blamed the O ring disaster on a lack of emotional intelligence, PMPs, a bunch on non-sense Steyn discusses that I wont.
Sep '10
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
I'm a big fan of Steyn, but he's got it wrong about medical research. The easy cures have been found and the ones left are really, really hard problems. That's the reason breakthroughs seem to be fewer and farther between these days and it makes sense if you think about it for a bit. In every field of human endeavor, the problems to be solved grow successively more difficult as the science or art progresses. Just take a look at the current research in physics and mathematics and you'll see what I mean.
Algebraic topology, anyone? It's a bit more difficult than what Evariste Galois was working on in the 1830s.
May '10
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
1) KT Cat- you hit my point exactly. My comment about only needing to precisely understand 300,000 proteins and all potential interactions was an illustration; do the math and the problem overwhelms. That is why only government and philanthropists can fund basic science.
2) There are fundamental policy changes that need to be put in place, in conjunction with elements of patent and FDA reform, before breakthrough research on less low-hanging fruit than infectives will be possible. I'll go into detail some day- but this is a legitimate case of market failure (most alleged cases of market failure aren't; this one is)
3) The government research funding system and academic science research are interesting, a cut-throat mirror of the larger free-market economy. Subject to the normal distortions of government corporatism, influence peddling, and insider favoritism, it still works well overall.
Academic research scientists understand and adapt to the competition- and for many, it is their only exposure to free markets. We train by far the best scientists in the world, both quality and quantity. It would be beneficial to spend enough to make sure that they stay in the US and do work.
Feb '11
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
George Savage: As in other highly regulated industries (education, anyone?), healthcare is trapped by regulation and reimbursement in an unsustainable model. Too much money is dedicated to improving absolute therapeutic capability instead of developing systems aimed at realizing value from the therapeutic capability we already have. Type 2 diabetes can be treated effectively, but a better pill isn't the answer.
We need business model innovation in healthcare more than we need new molecules. · Aug 28 at 10:38pm
Do you mean business model or regulatory model? I think a new regulatory model is very much called for. Since you work in the area, what would your recommendations be for a new regulatory model in this area be?
Feb '11
Re: Cure for Diabetes or Cancer? Don't Count On It.
George Savage: As in other highly regulated industries (education, anyone?), healthcare is trapped by regulation and reimbursement in an unsustainable model. Too much money is dedicated to improving absolute therapeutic capability instead of developing systems aimed at realizing value from the therapeutic capability we already have. Type 2 diabetes can be treated effectively, but a better pill isn't the answer.
We need business model innovation in healthcare more than we need new molecules. · Aug 28 at 10:38pm
Do you mean business model or regulatory model? I think a new regulatory model is very much called for. Since you work in the area, what would your recommendations be for a new regulatory model in this area be?