The Fierce Urgency of Now: Why the Obama Administration Must Appoint an NIH Director Committed to Cures

Reverend Martin Luther King's famous plea of "the fierce urgency of now" was often quoted by President-Elect Barack Obama when describing the importance of Americans realizing that we are at a defining moment in our nation's history. The same could be said about biomedical research and its application to the patient. The President-Elect will soon name a new Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The new Director must be committed to curing diseases, not only studying them. The leader of the NIH should be renamed the Director of the NIH and Cures to demonstrate a new priority of applying to the patient the amazing discoveries of the NIH and our universities.

The time has come, once and for all, to give hope to the 150 million Americans with diseases. It's time for America to once again use its great genius to be proactive and visionary. President-elect Barack Obama has excited America and the world with his "promise of change." He 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. We need leaders driven by a passion to execute on the promise of real healthcare change and bringing hope to the hopeless...It's time to end the ravages of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, cancers, schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis cystic fibrosis, name a few.

Located within the NIH Director's office, The American Center for Cures(ACC) will be a mission-driven, funded for success, accountable, 21st Century research facility focused upon applying discoveries to the patient. The ACC will give the Director for the first time the authority and responsibility to powerfully lead the 27 Centers and Institutes that compose the NIH.

The ACC will be a positive force in President Obama's "Change we can believe in." It will be a change in the priority of the nation that will fundamentally alter our lives by focusing a portion of our biomedical research on specifically curing diseases.

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. 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. The ACC will bring to bear the genius and discoveries in a direct line to the patient by applying the knowledge or asking for specific answers to specific questions. The ACC will put the pieces of the puzzle together.

An independent Cures Council consisting of great American leaders and scientists will choose several diseases to focus the genius and financial capital of the ACC. The criteria for choosing a disease will at least partially be its impact on Americans (indeed all mankind) and the likelihood of cure.

Each specified disease will have a leader who will be accountable and responsible for preventing or curing the disease. Centers for Excellence around the nation will be established to reduce the need to spend money on bricks and mortar. The NIH Director of Cures will appoint with the help of the scientific community an individual who will be responsible for the success or failure of each disease-specific team.

The ACC will fund, coordinate, simplify, expand, and market the importance of clinical trials.

The initial and most significant continuing funding of the ACC will be the Federal government, but the goal of the ACC will be to also form partnerships with the private sector. The linkage of the long-term commitment of the government with the speed and creativity of the private sector will be important for the success of the ACC.

The great American scientist Irving Selikof said that "Statistics are people with the tears wiped away." And Otis Brawley emphatically said, "Women and minorities are not dying for the lack of research; they are dying for the lack of research being applied to them." The ACC will not be focused purely on gaining knowledge; it will be focused upon applying knowledge to those of us who are ill.

Comments

[beavis]

This is totally wrongheaded, and will slow the progress of new therapies for human disease.

As a physician and a basic scientist, I can wholeheartedly agree that science has not progressed fast enough. But to put the blame on a lack of focus for "cures" is simply silly. History tells us that the real advances come from basic science, not from supposed "cures".

Case in point: Denise Faustman, a self promoting huckster if ever there was one. Denise has criticized her research field as not being focused enough on "cures". Instead, we should support her research.

What should our society support with precious dollars, the lext laetrile or the next protease inhibitor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Duke

[pmoessner]

Any body who has applied for a basic research NIH grant, which I have, would know that you must show in your grant application how your research relates to human health. It is the National Science Foundation that funds non health related basic science research for knowledge sake. As an academic scientist I am highly offended by all the negative comments. They only show the ignorance of the writers of how science works. The writers must be watching too much science fiction to think there are quick easy cures to complicated diseases.

[ebright]

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

[brassminnie]

Chronic disease treatment is too profitable for cures to be sought by private industry and a whole lot of grants to universities are also funded by these. Why would they fund research that would cost them profit? We're right back to the problem of a for-profit healthcare system. The question is not if we'll get a national health care plan. It's when we'll get it. Will we get it before or after the average lifespan in this country drops another three to five years? Check the stats, people, it's going down and it's not due to violence and auto accidents. We're dying because we can't afford to go to the doctor, or the medicine we need to keep us alive long enough for cures to be found. I know many women who haven't had a mammogram or pap smear in years because they can't afford it. They aren't quite poor enough to qualify for assistance. I know people who just state they're going to die within a few years, because they haven't got thousands a month for medications that would keep them alive. The same medications that cost a fourth to a tenth as much in other countries. For many people, losing a job was a death sentence for them or a family member. They can't get insurance on a new job, for an existing condition. Who do you love who will die, before we decide to end the profit on sickness and death?

[Dynamohum]

Why does EVERYBODY neglect to mention HIV/AIDS when they make their little NIH healthcare, research and development wish list? It isn't gone and people are still passing away from it. Many more are becoming HIV + at alarming rates all over the country.

[brassminnie]

It's on my list. I've looked in the eyes of too many who say, "Why am I going to die because I haven't got $4000 a month for medication, to keep me alive long enough to find a cure, when children in Africa receive what I can't get, for a small percentage of what I can't pay?" If a cure is found, which I do believe will happen, and fairly soon, under the current system, people here be told, "Too bad, you can't pay for it. Die, it's the American way."

[holeybuybull]

Profits suffer without repeat business. The capitalistic beast that is big pharma must be fed.

[darker]

I am convinced
of the SCIENCE-SCAM that exists in "finding cures" and
getting nowhere fast: endless pouring of grant money into pockets of scientists and
research institutes with NO RESULTS.

There really is no incentive to "fine a cure" for ANYTHING.
Because DISEASE= BIG BUSINESS.

Scientists do not deliver cures because
if they did, they would be
OUT OF BUSINESS and get no more grant funding.

BIG PHARMAceutical industry makes too much money on disease
to want any cures.

Finding a cure is also bad for the many foundations
whose executives make huge salaries pretending to push for cures
for various diseases.

The cancer INDUSTRY makes too much $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
to allow a cure for cancer. A cure for cancer would be like
shooting themselves in the head.

[Dynamohum]

I totally understand your skepticism and lack of trust, but their are still wonderful things happening and going on despite the dark underbelly of research and development.

[zola77]

"Darker", this "science is the enemy" crusade in the US has to stop. Corporations, and governments not regulating corporate activity are the problem, NOT scientists. They do good work and Obama has indicated that he is willing to aid their genuine research into finding scientific solutions to the problems we face in the natural/physical world.

Enough with the conspiracy theories about the "evil" scientists. Next thing you will begin doing is talking about the new world order, global conspiracy, secret reptilian alien governments.

The truth is not as complicated as you sometimes make it out to be.

[DrVandy]

These are some of the most naive, non-sensical statements I've ever read regarding science. As one of those researchers, I can assure you that I do not seek federal funding for the purpose of wealth. First, budgets are vigorously reviewed and attempts to siphon off funds for personal use is a federal crime. Second, most researchers stay up nights racking our brains, losing sleep at night wondering just how to cure disease and disorders, sometimes simply because they affect our own family members or ourselves. Yes, we are fascinated by science for the sake of science but for those of us doing clinical trials, we want to find and apply the answer.

p.s. the person who finds a cure for cancer, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's etc, will become a millionaire several times over, so it makes no sense to avoid finding a cure.