3 ms·

So if the US DoD doesn't fund medical research, not a single other organization or country does? If that is the case, then turning DoD funding back on does not

by wooter 13y ago

So if the US DoD doesn't fund medical research, not a single other organization or country does? If that is the case, then turning DoD funding back on does not seem like a sustainable plan. What is the response from the EU's member states (who's medical systems are often touted as superior)? After all, they're much closer to this than we are.

mediaman 13y ago
I don't know the answer to your question of whether other countries fund development of Marburg or Ebola treatments. I believe at the time the DoD funded it out of pure national self-interest: regardless of geographic proximity, just one infected person on the wrong flight could present a massive national security risk. To be fair the DoD did continue funding Ebola cures with Tekmira, and Tekmira earlier this year began dosing of the first human patient. That patient is healthy and the dosing is to test the safety profile of the drug. Reportedly the WHO has not requested any emergency supplies of Tekmira's drug yet.
- timr 13y ago
  The DoD funded it because they're worried about weaponized Ebola and Marburg. Given that the DoD is in the middle of a budget crunch, it's believable that they'd cut funding for defense programs against less-likely military threats.
mayneack 13y ago
Superior medical systems != superior medical research When you talk about sustainable plans here, it's all about relative stability. Sure the DOD might not be a completely sustainable way to fund this research, but I would certainly vote to turn it back on given the alternative being zero funding. You could make the argument that something like the Gates Foundation might be better, but I don't think it's obviously better in all areas than the DOD.
droopyEyelids 13y ago
The DoD is by far the largest, wealthiest, and most powerful institution on the planet when it comes to the broad range of things it's involved in. Saying DoD attention and funding for something is 'unsustainable' is sort of like saying the efforts of our planet to solve some problem are not sustainable.
sliverstorm 13y ago
The US is solely responsible for, to my understanding, most of the breakthrough pathology research in the past hundred years or so. No indication that is going to change. At least it's a hell of a legacy to leave. Please do correct me if I am wrong. I am no expert in pathology.
- rdl 13y ago
  We have a lot of other medical research entities in the US (NIH, CDC, a bunch of top universities, private pharma...), and I think the DOD is probably responsible for very few of the breakthroughs of the past 100 years. I'm not sure about the record of foreign governments, universities, companies, and other researchers, but I suspect the US is by far the biggest, but not the only. Just in the commercial world there are a lot of really excellent pharma and biotech companies outside the US - GSK, Roche, Bayer, Novartis, ...

by wooter 13y ago

mediaman 13y ago

I don't know the answer to your question of whether other countries fund development of Marburg or Ebola treatments. I believe at the time the DoD funded it out of pure national self-interest: regardless of geographic proximity, just one infected person on the wrong flight could present a massive national security risk. To be fair the DoD did continue funding Ebola cures with Tekmira, and Tekmira earlier this year began dosing of the first human patient. That patient is healthy and the dosing is to test the safety profile of the drug. Reportedly the WHO has not requested any emergency supplies of Tekmira's drug yet.

timr 13y ago
The DoD funded it because they're worried about weaponized Ebola and Marburg. Given that the DoD is in the middle of a budget crunch, it's believable that they'd cut funding for defense programs against less-likely military threats.

mayneack 13y ago

Superior medical systems != superior medical research When you talk about sustainable plans here, it's all about relative stability. Sure the DOD might not be a completely sustainable way to fund this research, but I would certainly vote to turn it back on given the alternative being zero funding. You could make the argument that something like the Gates Foundation might be better, but I don't think it's obviously better in all areas than the DOD.

droopyEyelids 13y ago

The DoD is by far the largest, wealthiest, and most powerful institution on the planet when it comes to the broad range of things it's involved in. Saying DoD attention and funding for something is 'unsustainable' is sort of like saying the efforts of our planet to solve some problem are not sustainable.

sliverstorm 13y ago

The US is solely responsible for, to my understanding, most of the breakthrough pathology research in the past hundred years or so. No indication that is going to change. At least it's a hell of a legacy to leave. Please do correct me if I am wrong. I am no expert in pathology.

rdl 13y ago
We have a lot of other medical research entities in the US (NIH, CDC, a bunch of top universities, private pharma...), and I think the DOD is probably responsible for very few of the breakthroughs of the past 100 years. I'm not sure about the record of foreign governments, universities, companies, and other researchers, but I suspect the US is by far the biggest, but not the only. Just in the commercial world there are a lot of really excellent pharma and biotech companies outside the US - GSK, Roche, Bayer, Novartis, ...