“Untitled” – by Philip Cooper
This is a response to Chris Ryan’s article entitled “Where are the Cures?” Chris asks why there are no cures to diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s, A.I.D.S and Alzheimer’s when technology has greatly advanced and millions of dollars have been spent in drug discovery and medical research. These are valid points and something that everyone would like to know the answers to, including those in the industry. However, reality isn’t that simple. Everybody knows of a close relative or friend who has, or is, suffering from one of the ailments mentioned above. It is hard to see our loved ones suffering from such diseases being unable to help them and to then look upon the pharmaceutical industry and ask: Why aren’t you helping us when you can?
People believe that pharmaceutical companies are satisfied with only producing drugs to treat and manage ailments instead of producing cures, as they believe that more money can be made from extending the lives of patients so that they continue to use their treatments for many years. People believe that this is a financial reason alone. I aim to disprove this notion.
So why are there no cures today? The simple answer is, that for many diseases, we still don’t know how to. Medicine is one of the newest fields in sciences. Physical, mathematical and chemical sciences have a good many years head-start on understanding their laws and mechanisms compared to biology. Mathematical equations were formulated in Ancient Greek times hundreds of years before we even knew that the brain was the most critical organ in the human body. When physics and chemistry scientists were making huge advancements to their knowledge in the 1600’s, medical science and biology would probably be described as voodoo in today’s society. Humanity simply didn’t know what it was doing in the medical world.
Modern medicine only took its first steps in 1928 when Alexander Fleming accidently discovered Penicillin. Before then we had no cure for bacterial infections. During the 1900’s modern medicine has begun to pick up its slack. The structure of DNA, our “building blocks of life”, was only discovered in 1953 and the human genome was only mapped in 2003 – we still don’t know what it all does. Parkinson’s disease was first described in the 1810’s, and it took another 100 years to discover that it was a disease of the brain. Alzheimer’s was only first described in 1901 and it took until 1977 until researchers had a better understanding of the symptoms. H.I.V., the virus that goes on to develop A.I.D.S., was only discovered about 30 years ago.
To first create a cure, medical researchers must fully understand the disease they are trying to cure. Researchers still don’t know why some people develop Parkinson’s disease and others do not. Modern medicine still doesn’t know why some people develop asthma. Medical research is still in the very early stages of developing its footing.
In a modern world where software companies can re-release tablet computers and mp3 players every nine months with newer and better capabilities; and in a world where we can travel across the Atlantic in seven hours, the general public expects to be also cured of cancer and A.I.D.S.. Such is that the medical world needs to play catch up to satisfy our fast moving ways of life. In order to satisfy these modern day desires, research is doing what it can to appease them by treating the diseases the best they can. Researchers know how to slow down cancer, researchers know how to keep viral levels low, and they know how to fight the symptoms of brain altering disorders such as Parkinson`s Disease, so these therapies are given to maintain a healthier and prolonged life. Isn’t that, in itself, amazing considering we didn’t know what A.I.D.S. was 25 years ago? Why do we demand so much more from pharmaceutical companies than others? Why aren’t we demanding the flying cars from car companies that we were promised in the 1960’s, or demanding communications companies that we should be teleporting ourselves right now?
What about stem cells? If they work to cure people of A.I.D.S , why aren’t they used for everyone who is suffering? People believe that the banning of stem cell research is another way for drugs companies to maintain people on treatment than cure. Firstly, it is essential to realize that there are many different types of stem cells. It was only the use of embryonic stem cells that were banned from being used in studies in which federal money was funding. In fact, science has actually re-programmed cells to become embryonic stem cells without the need to use a human fetus. However, embryonic stem cells are not the same as bone marrow stem cells. Bone marrow stem cells are used in medical research, but the use of them is extremely limited. Complications can arise during bone marrow stem cell transplant such as body rejection and death. The risks almost always outweigh the benefits.
So where’s all the money that was raised for the “Walk for a Cure” event going? Donations to charities for medical research almost always go to academic research facilities. It would be seen as being unethical for a private pharmaceutical company to accept such donations as legal matters may arise. Bias and unfair advantages to one disease being researched over another might be seen by the general public, for example. Charities may demand positive and rewarding results when results from studies may be impossible to achieve and then sue. Monies raised from charities do not go to “useless studies” with no results. They go to important academic facilities, usually funding graduate students through training and their own research projects. These scientists are the future of medical research and their projects are usually novel and ground breaking and pushing the boundaries of medical research further. So even though the money raised for completing that 5 mile run doesn’t cure cancer, it has played an essential part in the direction of a cure. The money is not wasted. Academic facilities service the medical research as prominently as the pharmaceutical industry. It is surprising then, that there is not more outcry from the general public in why they are not producing as efficiently as other fields of science – especially when it is the tax payers money that is going towards the majority of their funding! Why are the pharmaceutical industries the ones solely targeted and bashed by the public and media?
It appears that in today’s modern society we are expected to loathe big corporations. We are told to hate oil companies for abusing our addiction to fuel and told to detest pharmaceutical industries for profiting from our bad health. Why are they allowed to profit? Pharmaceutical companies are just like any other business; they offer a service to the general public, which then pays them for their product, which then causes them to make a profit. Whether it’s a fast food chain, a software company, or an airline, it’s their objective is to make a profit as they are a business and not a charity. The same is true for a pharmaceutical company. Is it unfair to expect them to spend billions of dollars on producing a product to give it away for free or to break even? Where is their incentive to continue? Where does the money for reinvestment for future drugs come from? Drugs are expensive to buy, yes – but they are very (very) expensive to create and manufacture. Inability to afford drugs is not the pharmaceutical industries fault. It quite possibly lies with the insurance company or government’s refusal to subsidize.
For every compound that is released to the general public, over one million were discovered, researched, tested and then discarded. Drug companies are not evil. They do want to find cures, they are researching on cures. There is a lot of excellent research going on behind closed doors, the researchers who work for them are passionate about the science, they are not money-making oil tycoons, but are science loving researchers who want to better the world with their ideas and research. The industry keeps a lot of things secret as these researchers don’t want their ideas stolen by other scientists working for other companies. Just as software companies keep things close to their chests, so do pharmaceutical companies. That is not to say that pharmaceutical industries don’t share information, because they do. The industry has realized that for modern medicine to advance and play catch up it needs the assistance from academic facilities and universities. Many successful collaborations, have taken place and are ongoing, between the industry and academia. It is not a selfish industry.
The pharmaceutical industry is seen as the “big bad wolf” of the medical research world in making huge profits year after year with apparently nothing to show society for it. However, this isn’t the case; in fact there are many reasons that we should be thankful for the pharmaceutical industry. How many of us, or know of someone who, regularly use inhalers to control their asthma? How many of our parents, or ourselves, are on anti-cholesterol medication to reduce the risk of a heart attack or stroke? Although these treatments don’t “cure” the diseases, when taken appropriately and changes to bad life styles are implemented, these treatments can be viewed as cures.
The taboo that pharmaceutical industries are evil is incorrect. They are not delaying finding a cure to maintain patients on their treatments which mask the symptoms of diseases. There is a genuine race going on to be the first to cure cancers, cure Parkinson`s Disease, and to cure A.I.D.S. – the diseases themselves need to be better understood so that the right cure can be found.
Medical researchers haven’t cured every disease yet – but they will!
Disclaimer: Philip Cooper has been a medical biology researcher for 10 years having gained a PhD in pharmacology from Imperial College, University of London; completed a post-doctorate at the University of Pennsylvania and is currently a research scientist for Johnson and Johnson. He has over 10 peer-reviewed published articles in high-ranking medical journals related to translational medical research specializing in pulmonary pharmacology.
