- Expediting Research -
Research is the fundamental backbone of finding cures to diseases. It can be very arduous, time consuming and difficult. Many times the results are not as expected and a great deal of time and money has been wasted on a failed project. There is also a considerable amount of red tape involved in research along with regulations and many other controlling factors.
A simple question to ask is:
'How can we expedite research and comply with all of the current rules and regulations?'
Let's take a look at some solutions:
Grants often take considerable time to obtain and rely on non-profit or charitable public funding. Data integrity is often better, but research is also quite limited in scope. When grant research fails it can be a time consuming process to secure new funding to further the research being conducted.
This is often frowned upon because there is always the insinuation that it is motivated by profit and that data can be manipulated, skewed or not reported. This is unfortunately true.
This is called 'Donor Advised Funding' and there are drawbacks to it. Aside from financial impact to the economy and other questions regarding distribution of funds collected, the largest hurdle is probably the fact that many of these funds can be restricted. This can inhibit research, limit the scope and often end up in failure. Many times restrictions are imposed by people or groups lacking the significant medical or scientific background that is necessary to conduct valid research.
Self funding is probably the fastest way to produce a result in research and it is most often conducted by only the most qualified Researchers. Again, this brings up questions of data being skewed or hidden along with the concerns relating to profit based research. Another serious drawback to this is the enormous potential for personal financial ruin.
What if Researchers and Physicians paid small amounts into a fund on a regular basis managed by a neutral party in exchange for unbiased data collection?
Funds would accumulate quickly if this were to take place. Distribution of the funds would be undertaken by the neutral party and approved by the contributing community as a whole based solely on the merits of the research proposed.
Research must be focused on cause, treatment and prevention with weekly reporting to the neutral party on all aspects of the study. Not reporting would be a disqualifying event.
Allocations for research would be limited to fixed amounts needed for the research. Further funding would follow the same process based on initial results or cancelled upon completion of the study if found to lack merit.
Researchers would be allowed a specific amount for salaries and wages and projected costs. Leftover funds would be returned to the research fund and cost over runs could be requested prior to completing research.
Outside contributions of any type would immediately disqualify the research and be cause for withdrawal of funds.
This option would provide many advantages:
· It would provide an adequate funding source for research without concern of private interest.
· It would allow funding for studies that might not otherwise be approved.
· It would greatly expedite the funding process.
· It would systematically eliminate or include causes and risk factors in a disease or illness.
· Upon successful conclusion of research and treatment, the researcher would obtain patent rights to the study.
· It would encourage competition amongst Researchers in the study of underfunded and currently non profitable research in diseases such as Parkinson's.
· It would provide a resource for general Physicians and specialists to enable them to more quickly diagnose these types of illnesses and provide better care for their Patients.
Moving research forward in this fashion would certainly not circumvent government requirements, but it would move research along more quickly and contribute to a much higher success rate in clinical trials. It would also provide for lower cost in manufacture of a drug while still providing ample room for competition and profit amongst Researchers and pharmaceutical companies.
In order to make this work, we must first accomplish one goal; collect as much data as possible to begin new research techniques and initiate new studies. Empirical data is the key to research and it is horribly lacking in Parkinson's and similar neurological disorders. This would be the sole responsibility of the neutral party with continuous input and data requests from the Researchers involved.
This would mean that we ALL have to work together.
It's time for a new approach