Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U of A discovery offers promising research for spinal-cord injury treatments

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Originally posted by Wise Young View Post
    NIH stopped posting funding by disease categories during the Bush Administration. In 1995, it used to be $45 million. In 2000, I believe that it was about $75 million. I estimate that NIH today spends no more than $80 million per year on spinal cord injury research, both applied and basic. In other words, I think that NIH spends about 0.26% of its budget on spinal cord injury research every year.

    Wise.

    Can you give an estimate of how much MS gets?

    We need more transparency in the NIH.
    2012 SCINetUSA Clinical Trial Support Squad Member
    Please join me and donate a dollar a day at http://justadollarplease.org and copy and paste this message to the bottom of your signature.

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by Wise Young View Post
      NIH stopped posting funding by disease categories during the Bush Administration. In 1995, it used to be $45 million. In 2000, I believe that it was about $75 million. I estimate that NIH today spends no more than $80 million per year on spinal cord injury research, both applied and basic. In other words, I think that NIH spends about 0.26% of its budget on spinal cord injury research every year.

      Wise.
      Wise,

      I just looked into this. The NIH replaced CRISP with RePORTER and added the beta ExPORTER tool, which lets you download a list of all grants funded per fiscal year in either XML or CSV format.

      A naive search of the CSV file for the phrase 'spinal cord injury' shows that $126,706,035 in grants were funded in FY 2009. Data included in the pre-FY 2008 files are fairly incomplete, so I couldn't test my methodology against it.

      For the geeks , here's how I arrived at the amount:

      Code:
       grep -i 'spinal cord injur[iy]' RePORTER_PRJ_C_FY2009.csv | perl -lne '@a=split(/,/); print $a[-2];' | awk '/[0-9]/ { SUM += $1 } END { print SUM }'
      ETA: This may include duplicates. Assuming that grants totaling the same amount are duplicates and counting them only onces leaves the total at $116,040,439.

      ETA #2: filtering by unique serial number puts us at $126,555,035.

      Steven
      Last edited by Steven Edwards; 21 Jun 2010, 11:39 AM.
      ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by swh2007 View Post
        Can you give an estimate of how much MS gets?
        Filtering by unique serial number, $203,140,843 last fiscal year.
        ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by Steven Edwards View Post
          Filtering by unique serial number, $203,140,843 last fiscal year.
          Thank you for your efforts in doing this. I guess I am a little surprised by the numbers but the good news is that SCI is getting substantial funds. I actually thought the difference between SCI and MS would be larger. With 200 clinical trials going on (I think Dr. Young said that a few days ago), the MS community must be raising more private funds than the SCI community (make sense?). Seems odd since the MS and SCI communities are about the same in number, but perhaps there are logical explanations.

          With MS cure involving both auto-immune aspects and neurological regeneration, I wonder if MS research doesn't also help with SCI cure.
          2012 SCINetUSA Clinical Trial Support Squad Member
          Please join me and donate a dollar a day at http://justadollarplease.org and copy and paste this message to the bottom of your signature.

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by swh2007 View Post
            . . . the MS community must be raising more private funds than the SCI community (make sense?). Seems odd since the MS and SCI communities are about the same in number, but perhaps there are logical explanations.
            Degenerative diseases generally raise more funds than chronic ones.

            They're more of a "this'll kill you, so get your affairs in order and hope research comes through with something!" whereas SCI's more like "dude, that sucks! but you can still play wheelchair basketball and sit-ski!"

            (No offense to wheelchair basketball players or sit-skiers, of course. Just pointing out the difference in societal views on degenerative diseases and SCI. One's approached as a death sentence and the other is "meh, you'll live, make the best of it.")

            With MS cure involving both auto-immune aspects and neurological regeneration, I wonder if MS research doesn't also help with SCI cure.
            They can both benefit from remyelination, so there is some cross-pollination going on.

            Steven
            ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

            Comment


              #66
              Steven, that's a major point; that sci, als, and ms have a commonality of demylination. I hope that researching one will benefit all. I've been looking at the "Myelin Repair Foundation" for updates on their research. One thing I've caught on is that what was to be a 5 year breakthru on ms is tuning into a 15 year project. This is where I become leary of the work and the publicity of these foundations. Let's hope that Wise's trials will happen much sooner and help all diseases with demylination/

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by Steven Edwards View Post
                Degenerative diseases generally raise more funds than chronic ones.

                They're more of a "this'll kill you, so get your affairs in order and hope research comes through with something!" whereas SCI's more like "dude, that sucks! but you can still play wheelchair basketball and sit-ski!"

                (No offense to wheelchair basketball players or sit-skiers, of course. Just pointing out the difference in societal views on degenerative diseases and SCI. One's approached as a death sentence and the other is "meh, you'll live, make the best of it.")

                They can both benefit from remyelination, so there is some cross-pollination going on.

                Steven
                Thank you again.
                2012 SCINetUSA Clinical Trial Support Squad Member
                Please join me and donate a dollar a day at http://justadollarplease.org and copy and paste this message to the bottom of your signature.

                Comment


                  #68
                  Hey Guys, go to www.stepahead.org.au and check out there latest newsletter of what they are working on in Australia for curing CHRONIC sci!!!

                  Comment


                    #69
                    malthouse,

                    Thank you for the link. I wish this group success. The break through with a longer acting chondriotinase is significant.

                    I have been reading of efforts similiar to this group since 2002, perhaps they can move things along.

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Seems that one of the main targets in recovery is advancing in the right way. Very promising.
                      -Ramps in buildings are necessary, but it would be usefull to have another ones for people (mind/heart).....

                      -Hoc non pereo habebo fortior me

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Steven,

                        Thank you so much for this analysis. When I served on the NICHD Council and also on the National Advisory Board for Rehabilitation Medicine and Research of NIH, I worked with some of the people there concerning the categorization of research funding. At that time, I had categorized by hand the 200-300 grants that have "spinal cord injury" in the title or abstract. The keyword searches turned out to be a significant overestimate of grants that were doing spinal cord injury research. About one out of four grants were not actually studying spinal cord injury but may have some implication for spinal cord injury and therefore was mentioned in the abstract. Many of studies were on normal spinal cord function. Getting actual dollar figures was also hard because the database contained requested budgets rather than the awarded budgets. Especially in the past several years, awarded budgets were 20-30% less than requested budgets. Nevertheless, I am happy to hear that the estimated funding of spinal cord injury research is as high as $129 million. That is very good news indeed.

                        Wise.


                        Originally posted by Steven Edwards View Post
                        Wise,

                        I just looked into this. The NIH replaced CRISP with RePORTER and added the beta ExPORTER tool, which lets you download a list of all grants funded per fiscal year in either XML or CSV format.

                        A naive search of the CSV file for the phrase 'spinal cord injury' shows that $126,706,035 in grants were funded in FY 2009. Data included in the pre-FY 2008 files are fairly incomplete, so I couldn't test my methodology against it.

                        For the geeks , here's how I arrived at the amount:

                        Code:
                         grep -i 'spinal cord injur[iy]' RePORTER_PRJ_C_FY2009.csv | perl -lne '@a=split(/,/); print $a[-2];' | awk '/[0-9]/ { SUM += $1 } END { print SUM }'
                        ETA: This may include duplicates. Assuming that grants totaling the same amount are duplicates and counting them only onces leaves the total at $116,040,439.

                        ETA #2: filtering by unique serial number puts us at $126,555,035.

                        Steven

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Wise,

                          You're welcome. I'm considering pulling out and posting the awarded spinal cord injury grants (e.g., grant abstract, title, PI, amount) as each month's grants are made available. Would that be beneficial?

                          Steven

                          Originally posted by Wise Young View Post
                          Steven,

                          Thank you so much for this analysis. When I served on the NICHD Council and also on the National Advisory Board for Rehabilitation Medicine and Research of NIH, I worked with some of the people there concerning the categorization of research funding. At that time, I had categorized by hand the 200-300 grants that have "spinal cord injury" in the title or abstract. The keyword searches turned out to be a significant overestimate of grants that were doing spinal cord injury research. About one out of four grants were not actually studying spinal cord injury but may have some implication for spinal cord injury and therefore was mentioned in the abstract. Many of studies were on normal spinal cord function. Getting actual dollar figures was also hard because the database contained requested budgets rather than the awarded budgets. Especially in the past several years, awarded budgets were 20-30% less than requested budgets. Nevertheless, I am happy to hear that the estimated funding of spinal cord injury research is as high as $129 million. That is very good news indeed.

                          Wise.
                          ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

                          Comment


                            #73
                            Ah:

                            Source:
                            ExPORTER contains data on research projects funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), their abstracts, and publications and patents citing support from these projects. The data are separated into four major categories of files: Projects, Project Abstracts, Publications, and Patents. Project files are organized by fiscal year of funding and publication files are organized by year of publication (all patent-related information is in a single file). The files are provided in two formats: XML (Extensible Markup Language) and CSV (Comma-Separated Values) (Source)
                            This includes VA data as well. Even better.
                            ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

                            Comment


                              #74
                              Originally posted by Chris Chappell View Post
                              Schmeky ~ I agree. We haven't always seen eye-to-eye but time, experience and education of the "cure" environment and its machinations seems to have ultimately put us on similar paths and perspectives.

                              Many of you newer members of CC and the SCI world are quick to criticize and label a discerning view as negative. Look in the mirror and ask yourself whether you're being positive, supportive, open minded or realistic. Many of us have, and still are, on the front lines of the cure process (and make no mistake, it is a process) more than any of you will ever be. In my case I've given up an alternative 20+ yr career to now work for an SCI rehabilitation, recovery, and CURE based organization ~ Craig Hospital to HELP THIS COMMUNITY! How many of you are on the front lines, and have been like Schmeky and I for 10+yrs? My point is, until you've rolled a mile in our/my shoes, do me a favor and spend more time listening than talking. You want to help, then put your money, time and life into this process like some of us who have given everything to drive it forward. Funding, legislation, politics, education, mentoring, study, communication and the myriad of other efforts that continue to be needed by all of us in our own way.

                              Wise, your energy, compassion, dedication and efforts for this community are unparalleled. You will always have my respect and support. However, unlike others I will challenge you. You are and have been, many times, flat out wrong. I've been reading, listening, financially supporting your lab for years only to be disappointed time and time again. All of this talk, study after study (case in point, above), doesn't mean bubkus! It's all just noise, rhetoric, doublespeak and grandstanding. There are no clinical trials! There is no trial infrastructure! There is no real money being applied to curing SCI. And Schmeky is right. Even if tomorrow, a miracle of an SCI cure was delivered it would take 5-10yrs for FDA, Phase I, II, III, IV clinical trials, etc., etc. and you know it. Believe me, I get it, you are the greatest ambassador and cheerleader for SCI ever. My gratitude to you is permanent. Unfortunately, we need $$$$$$$$$$ beyond anything most members here can even fathom. In that world, you, me, Schmeky, etc. have only made a small dent toward success. Without it (BIG $$$$) we will be permanently paralyzed no how many "breakthrough" studies and stories are delivered. That's the reality. Any other picture, at this time, right here, right now is conjecture and pure fantasy. Please don't misunderstand, hope is alive and well (hell, my career is now based on it) but the full comprehension of this challenge is also crystal clear in my eyes, heart and soul. And any researcher, you or other, will not convince me alternatively until studies like this have consistent, human application ~ from bench to bedside. My guess is, by Schmeky's 'jaded' comment, he feels the same.

                              Onward and Upward,

                              Chris
                              I do not agree 100% with Chris here, but I think there are very good points in this post.

                              Paolo
                              In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X