2008 Woodie Awards
New Strategies To Fund Scientific Research
Alex Kushnir
Issue date: 12/6/04 Section: Science & Technology
- Page 1 of 2 next >
For most scientists during the 80's and early 90's the idea of researching prostate cancer was a dead end. Like any academic field, the funding for scientific research had the tendency to end up in the 'hot topics,' and while prostate cancer is fairly common, the field got little attention from the NIH and received only a handful of grants. For young MD's and PhD's, the idea of studying prostate cancer meant risking career suicide. It wasn't that science was ignoring the tens of thousands of men who died from the disease each year, but rather it was the prolonged latency (the time it takes from the onset of the disease until the patient succumbs to it) which seemed to remove the lack of urgency for research. At the time Howard Scher, chief of genitourinary oncology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said "people were afraid to try anything. There was a total nihilism in the field."
Everything changed in 1993 when the infamous, highflying, junk-bond wizard Michael Milken entered the scene and founded the Prostate Cancer Foundation. In the mid 80's Milken had been indicted on six accounts of securities violations related to market manipulation and served a small prison term. Soon after his release, Milken discovered he had prostate cancer. With no where to turn Milken decided on an aggressive course of treatments including hormone therapy, chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation. Within a few months Milken's PSA levels (a method of assessing the risk of prostate cancer) dropped to zero which helped doctors confirm that the cancer had gone into remission.
The Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) he founded was oriented to help increase public awareness about the disease and help provide funding for new cures. However, unlike the plethora of existing science funding foundations, Milken had a novel approach which soon proved far superior then conventional methods. The conventional approach revolves around the NIH's method which, in theory is quite simple: 1) scientists propose a hypothesis, 2) they submit a proposal with data from preliminary experiments, and 3) if approved the money is sent in annual installments. In reality each of these steps is vitally flawed. For starters, only those projects which are sound and seemingly-guaranteed winners are approved. Secondly, the average application, including supporting material, can run well over a hundred pages. And finally, depending on the federal budget it can take an extra year or two for the funding to actually begin. Simply put, in all these years science has often missed out on many good ideas.
Everything changed in 1993 when the infamous, highflying, junk-bond wizard Michael Milken entered the scene and founded the Prostate Cancer Foundation. In the mid 80's Milken had been indicted on six accounts of securities violations related to market manipulation and served a small prison term. Soon after his release, Milken discovered he had prostate cancer. With no where to turn Milken decided on an aggressive course of treatments including hormone therapy, chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation. Within a few months Milken's PSA levels (a method of assessing the risk of prostate cancer) dropped to zero which helped doctors confirm that the cancer had gone into remission.
The Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) he founded was oriented to help increase public awareness about the disease and help provide funding for new cures. However, unlike the plethora of existing science funding foundations, Milken had a novel approach which soon proved far superior then conventional methods. The conventional approach revolves around the NIH's method which, in theory is quite simple: 1) scientists propose a hypothesis, 2) they submit a proposal with data from preliminary experiments, and 3) if approved the money is sent in annual installments. In reality each of these steps is vitally flawed. For starters, only those projects which are sound and seemingly-guaranteed winners are approved. Secondly, the average application, including supporting material, can run well over a hundred pages. And finally, depending on the federal budget it can take an extra year or two for the funding to actually begin. Simply put, in all these years science has often missed out on many good ideas.