Improving the bench-to-bedside process

Although the medical community has been talking about it for years, do you think that the focus on improving the process of "bench to beside" has made any difference at all? A call to arms of sorts was published in Newsweek's health and science blog Lab Notes this past week, entitled "From Bench to Bedside: Academia slows the search for cures."

This article, written by veteran science and health writer Sharon Begley, may initially seem offensive for those of us in academic medicine. But, as I read and reread this article, I realize she's right. Much of her arguments focus on the NIH and also on the strange incentives to not make big time medical discoveries. There are particular disadvantages for scientists who have discoveries or theories that do not offer potential to generate a profit. And, yes, I totally agree, the pace of progress is much too slow, especially for cancer. Begley rightfully states that for us to make any great changes in this paradigm, we need a highly innovative leader in the NIH, or as Begley says it better: "It will take an NIH director of almost mythic proportions to turn around this ship."

Is that person out there? And is Obama willing to take this chance on him or her? Given the amount of time he has taken to appoint the new director of the FDA, one can surmise that he is weighing this decision carefully. Biomedical research is a big complicated beast, and to reverse course or change well-set ways will require a scientist with a very unique set of skills.