AUSTIN, Texas – Texas gave birth to the modern oil industry, invented the handheld calculator and sent man to the moon. But can the Lone Star State cure cancer?
Texas is ready to try by investing $3 billion over the next decade in cancer research and prevention, which would make the state the gatekeeper of the second largest pot of cancer research dollars in the country, behind only the National Cancer Institute.
"I don't know anyone that would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with what they're trying to do," said Robert Urban, executive director of the Koch Institute for Innovative Cancer Research at MIT.
That gee-whiz impression is what Texas leaders sought in 2007, when the state created the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas through an ambitious bond measure approved by voters. Lance Armstrong, champion cyclist and cancer survivor, sold the plan to voters, and Gov. Rick Perry said he dreamed of a day "we talk about cancer the same way we talk about polio."
Texas is now putting out the call to scientists: Come and get the money.
Institute leaders say the money will fund drug developments, gamble on high-risk research turned away elsewhere and attract big-name scientists to Texas. Creating the first statewide clinical trial network, which could give cancer patients more access to experimental drugs, also is being discussed.
But so much money on the table — particularly in the hands of a state that's new to funding cancer research — has some researchers worried that politics and backroom deals will play a role in deciding who gets what. The agency will invest upward of $260 million a year on cancer research and $30 million in preventive services such as early detection screenings.
A sagging economy also makes some skittish about whether the state will follow through with funding for an entire decade.
"That $3 billion isn't in the bank," said Dr. Tyler Curiel, executive director of the Cancer Therapy & Research Center at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. "What if the money isn't going to be there in the future?"
Curiel is among the hundreds of researchers who began writing applications last month for a slice of the $450 million Texas will hand out over the first two years. The first grants are expected to be awarded by spring.
The state also is hoping to lure more top scientists to Texas with $2 million offers for salary and research and is prepared to offer even more for "superstars."
But once the money is doled out, the agency cautions, don't expect any overnight miracles.
"(We're) not going to bring new drugs to market during the first two years. Nor during the first four years," said Dr. Alfred Gilman, the institute's chief scientific officer. "It will take a good deal of time."
No other state comes close to the amount of cancer research dollars Texas has pledged. California voters in 2004 approved a $3 billion plan for a stem cell research agency, which opponents tied up in court for two years over the ethics of creating and destroying embryos from which the cells could be harvested.
Massachusetts in 2008 passed a $1 billion, 10-year initiative to fund life sciences research, but some have wondered about the viability of that big-ticket endeavor given the state's economic woes.
Texas, meanwhile, is doling out cancer research dollars at a time when funds nationwide have been flat or drying up. The National Cancer Institute handed out $3.14 billion in so-called extramural grants in fiscal year 2008, a slight drop from 2007 and down from $3.25 billion in 2005. The federal stimulus bill gave the NCI an additional $1.26 billion in grant money, but researchers say it's still not enough.
Texas already is no slouch when it comes to fighting cancer. The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston is one of the top cancer research sites in the country, and the state is home to headquarters of Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the Lance Armstrong Foundation.
Dr. Patrick Reynolds, director of the cancer center at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, returned to Texas last year after working at the University of Southern California. He said there was frustration among researchers in California with the state spending billions on stem cell research but nothing to help cancer patients in the short term.
He expects other researchers to flock to Texas.
"I think what people are saying is that (Texas) really cares," Reynolds said. "And by golly, now we got some more resources to do something."
But the new institute has been pinched by the economic slowdown. State lawmakers did not fully fund it for the first two years, leaving $150 million on the table. Institute officials believe the agency may be able to recoup that money down the road, Executive Director Bill Gimson said.
State Rep. Garnet Coleman voted for the initiative, but the Houston Democrat was disappointed that no more than 10 percent of the money is earmarked for preventive services that have a more immediate impact.
Gimson said he could not imagine a scenario in which drug companies would be awarded the money, but Coleman is worried that Big Pharma could still find a way to take advantage of state dollars. He also worried about the institute's transparency when it comes to where the money will be spent.
Institute leaders say the agency's ethics standards will avoid any conflicts of interest and ensure that the awards will be merit-based. The agency will use out-of-state peer review groups composed of doctors and scientists to review the grant applications.
"The people have given us a lot of money," said James Mansour, chairman of the institute's oversight committee. "It's incumbent on us to spend the money and spend it properly."
Source: Yahoo! News
Per Una
GO TEXAS!
1Good for Texas.
2good for them. i have a friend with lymphoma. she's gone down to tx several times to get treatment. i had no idea they had such good research facilities down there until she started making the trip.
3What happens if they discover irrefutable evidence that oil drilling and refining causes cancer?
4Then we'll look to ways to get away from oil. Of course, the health care and insurance industries would probably block any legislation on that sort of reform, citing it would cost them jobs, and the auto industry would cry for another huge "loan" help them retool to make cars that run on a different type of fuel.
5I wonder how fast the researchers' money would be diverted to other studies, and how quickly the oil-causes-cancer-skeptics movement would kick in.
6We could wonder what might happen if oil is found to cause cancer all day, and get to nastier and nastier conclusions. I think the public would be more overjoyed if they found a cure, the causes notwithstanding.
7It's not just snarky speculation: there are cases of important research being repressed by corporate interests. With this much money in a state so tightly tied to one industry, it's a real possibility.
8if oil causes cancer, I would conclude that all Iranians must be on chemo.
9"there are cases of important research being repressed by corporate interests. "
It's interesting that you condem the entire private sector because of a few bad apples. Do you have any examples of important cancer research being repressed? Do you have any examples of texas oil companies (that are still in business) that have repressed research? It's snarky speculation.
10Just pointing out that 3-billion dollars for research, in one state with one huge industry is cause for concern.
11And 1)no one condemned 'the entire private sector'; 2) Exxon has an interesting history; 3) research showing links between uranium and cancer, asbestos and cancer, coal dust and cancer has been repressed by companies.
It's speculation based on knowledge of history and current events.
"3) research showing links between uranium and cancer, asbestos and cancer, coal dust and cancer has been repressed by companies."
Which companies, and how long ago did this occur?
12Look It Up.
13Back up your claim.
14I've given you enough back up. If you're truly interested, you can actually do some research of your own - though to be honest, any adult who reads even one newsmagazine a week would have an idea of the cases I'm referencing.
15The only backup you've given is Exxon, an I can only think of the Valdez accident that you are referring to. How about a web site with actuall statistics that come from the last 10 years?
16A website that keeps statistics on companies that repress important information each year? Really? Do you want the information broken down by company, country & state too? Cross-indexed with diseases repressed and chemicals involved? We could call it the Snidely Whiplash Index.
You asked for the name of a Texas company that repressed research, I gave you the name of a Texas company linked to repressed research; you asked for research suppressed, I gave you examples of repressed research. You have more than enough to get started.
17clearly undave, there aren't any others.
18Clearly. If someone won't spell every piece of information out for you time after time, it must not exist.
19"What happens if they discover irrefutable evidence that oil drilling and refining causes cancer?"
WTH does that have to do with this article in the first place?
20First sentence says Texas gave birth to the modern oil industry, second sentence says 'Texas is ready to try by investing $3 billion over the next decade in cancer research and prevention, which would make the state the gatekeeper of the second largest pot of cancer research dollars in the country, behind only the National Cancer Institute."
21So what? I think it's great that they are willing to invest a ton of money in cancer research. Your question is a "what if" scenario, not something based in fact.
22My question is a logical, plausible, what if scenario based on factual connections made in the first two sentences of the article. It is great they're willing to invest the money in cancer research - but there's a lot of talk lately about how people should take responsibility for their own health. WHAT IF researchers find the best way to prevent some kinds of cancer is to not allow yourself to be exposed to certain chemicals?
23What if a bus going 70 miles an hour hits you? What if an earthquake hits and CA. falls into the ocean? What if is just a lot of negative energy.
Negative energy can give you cancer.
Now they say too much folate acid can give you cancer. It seems we have fortified everything with it to bring down birth defects but it has become to much and leads to colon cancer.
24" During the 20th century, the average lifespan in the United States increased by more than 30 years, of which 25 years can be attributed to advances in public health.[23]" Wikipedia.
This would indicate an extremely positive trend. Perhaps it is time to consider all unhealthy lifestyle choices (we've already targeted smokers?) as another method to control the causes of many cancers including many preventable diseases.
25everything gives you cancer.
26What will we they do if they find lipstick causes cancer? What will we do if we find watching TV causes cancer? What will we do if we find soap causes cancer? What would we do if we found the Obama administration causes cancer? Gee we could go on all day making stupid speculations couldn't we?
27They've already found out that exposure to certain chemicals can lead to cancer. PCBs, formaldehyde, asbestos, and VOCs for example. In some cases legislation has regulated the amount of the chemical a person can be exposed to.
I would imagine that if drilling and refining were discovered to cause cancer, OSHA would place all kinds of requirements on the activities to protect the worker.
28And SKB, history tells us that there would be corporate efforts to suppress, delay or confuse the information and to weaken OSHA requirements. See cases against Kerr McGee, Phillip Morris, Exxon, Chevron, Merck and Schering-Plough...
29OMG...An entire state stands up and is paying for cancer research to save everyone who has cancer. Not just the great Texans....everybody which would include speculating nay-sayers. They aren't even making you pay---or even asking the government to make you contribute.
Gosh...let's go look for some hidden agenda...some repressive or depressive little incidental idea to somehow question the merit of anyone doing anything for anyone else.
Have you lost all hope in humanity? Do you not think for a moment that this is an example of people over-whelmingly supporting a selfless act for the betterment of us all?
30Perhaps you should rethink that whole senario about Texas as you may need them someday. Hopefully they won't ask you to present them with documentation on your support of their selfless cancer research.
Perhaps this comment was snarky--however it is truthful. Medicine often tastes bad. Your attack of people doing GOOD...for the betterment of everyone was in bad taste.
31Sorry that invoking known history upsets you.
32May the force be with you, Dear Leader.
33Negativity causes cancer...it is eating away at this thread.
34Ooh! That one is better.
Regarding the topic, I appreciate the gesture and hope it is given with good intentions.
35That one is better Amy.
36You live another day.
Stupidity and cupidity should be an impeachable offenses.
37Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.