Medical research: non-profit vs. profit

[jimtron]

I'm involved with a discussion on another forum where the topic of drug company-sponsored research studies came up. We're discussing claims of diet as a cure for Chron's disease, which there doesn't seem to be evidence of (beyond helping with symptoms). I heard an argument that was something like this: the drug companies won't sponsor a study showing that diet will cure Chron's, because there isn't money to be made. I replied that there are many research studies that are funded by organizations without a profit motive. I was asked for stats showing the ratio of profit to non-profit backed research. Can anyone point me to a resource for this kind of info? Thanks.

[slyjoe]

I can't see the report (I think you have to be an AMA membor or buy it).

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/23/3071-a?etoc

[jimtron]

I can't see the report (I think you have to be an AMA membor or buy it).

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/23/3071-a?etoc

Thanks, that's just what I'm looking for. Maybe I can get it at the library.

[fls]

I can't see the report (I think you have to be an AMA membor or buy it).

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/23/3071-a?etoc

That article compares the types of conclusions drawn from for-profit vs. non-profit studies, not the ratio of the types of research funding.

"The Benefits of Medical Research and the Role of the NIH (http://hsc.utoledo.edu/research/nih_research_benefits.pdf)" report from the US Congress, Joint Economic Committee has useful information. Specifically, page 9 seems to have the information you are looking for.

Linda

[slyjoe]

Thx Linda - much better

So, it's roughly 43% to 57% (non-profit + NIH to profit)?

[headscratcher4]

Question: why would drug companies sponsor research about whether diet can cure the disease? Are car companies expected to do research on how horses might be better for the environment? Should Boing sponsor research about whether ships are better than planes for crossing the ocean (unless they want to get into the ship business)?

Drug companies do drug research. That's not bad, that is the business they are in.

Dieticians or food companies or medical researchers or the NIH, it seems to me, should do research into whether Chrone's can be cured by diet. More power to them.

[jimtron]

That article compares the types of conclusions drawn from for-profit vs. non-profit studies, not the ratio of the types of research funding.

"The Benefits of Medical Research and the Role of the NIH (http://hsc.utoledo.edu/research/nih_research_benefits.pdf)" report from the US Congress, Joint Economic Committee has useful information. Specifically, page 9 seems to have the information you are looking for.

Linda

Thanks!

[fls]

Question: why would drug companies sponsor research about whether diet can cure the disease? Are car companies expected to do research on how horses might be better for the environment? Should Boing sponsor research about whether ships are better than planes for crossing the ocean (unless they want to get into the ship business)?

Drug companies do drug research. That's not bad, that is the business they are in.

Dieticians or food companies or medical researchers or the NIH, it seems to me, should do research into whether Chrone's can be cured by diet. More power to them.

Some people have the impression that medical research (or the great majority of medical research) is performed by drug companies. It's one of the excuses that sCAM purveyors give for the lack of evidence for their products. I think that it would be useful to be able to point out that a large chunk of medical research is performed without the profit incentive.

Linda

[fls]

Thx Linda - much better

So, it's roughly 43% to 57% (non-profit + NIH to profit)?

That's what it looks like in the US. I haven't tracked down the given source for those numbers, yet.

Linda

[Cuddles]

Some people have the impression that medical research (or the great majority of medical research) is performed by drug companies. It's one of the excuses that sCAM purveyors give for the lack of evidence for their products. I think that it would be useful to be able to point out that a large chunk of medical research is performed without the profit incentive.

Linda

All those pesky doctors studying things for example.:p

Incidentally, Diamond Light Source is the largest research project in the UK for over 30 years and a large fraction of it's research must be in biology and life sciences, most of which involves medical research. 14% of the funding is from the Wellcome Trust, a non-profit charity, while the rest is from the government, also non-profit (although possibly not by choice).

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Then we have the issue of deliberately NOT studying the effects of a medical procedure. I refer to my area of expertise, sympathectomy, or ETS surgery. This is a surgery that has been performed regularly since 1920, and involves the destruction of sympathetic nerve function in:

The heart, the lungs, blood vessels, the thyroid gland, bone, bone marrow, other immune organs such as the thymus, adipose tissue, arrector pili muscles and sensory nerves.

The willful ignorance on the part of the surgeons is appalling. For instance, we have strong reason to suspect that ETS surgery will affect bone metabolsim. We know that sympathetic nerves drive bone remodelling, and we know that sympathectomy in gerbils and rats certainly affects their bone metabolism. Yet, to date, I am unaware of any human studies taking bone scans before and after sympathectomy.

I administrate the world's leading treatise on this subject (http://editthis.info/corposcindosis/Main_Page), which has been authored by laypeople. When a layperson becomes the world's leading expert on the effects of a particular type of neurosurgery, what does that say?

Please see this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79795