Why basic science research is needed

[Further]

About five years ago while researching a completely separate kinase complex our lab got turned onto studying autophagy for a short time in an attempt to elucidate a particular cellular communication pathway. It led nowhere for our lab, but in our communications with other labs I ended up processing some protein samples for western blots as a favor. Those results were a tiny chunk of info that led like dominos to other research that led to the following breakthrough that could be a big step in helping chemotherapy succeed, and lower levels be more beneficial. It takes so much input to move forward.

Anyway, I just point this out because when we were working on it, there was only basic research, nothing that was thought to be usable in the near future by drug companies. Because of that, if it weren't for Federal NIH grants in America, I highly doubt we (mostly other labs around the globe) would have ever gotten to this point, where it now makes sense for drug companies to invest the millions it will take to reach the next step and save lives, possibly many thousands of lives.

For those who don't understand the concept of State sponsored research.

https://idw-online.de/de/news644278

The Cellular Trash Bag
Dr. Christiane Menzfeld Öffentlichkeitsarbeit
Max-Planck-Institut für Biochemie
In autophagy, the process responsible for recycling waste in cells, molecular waste bags are produced. As now reported in Nature Communications, scientists at the Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry in Martinsried have identified a molecular glue that sticks small lipid vesicles, the building blocks for the waste bags, together. Autophagy helps cancer cells survive chemotherapy treatment. This is why a glue inhibitor the scientists have recently identified could provide the basis for a new form of cancer treatment.

Autophagy plays an important role in the cellular recycling process. It transports unwanted or damaged cytoplasmic material to the lysosomes, the cells’ recycling plants. This is achieved by producing specialized waste bags, termed autophagosomes, that recognize the waste material, encase it, and transfer it to the recycling plant. Two protein components are essential for the production of these specialized waste bags. One of these is Atg9, a membrane protein embedded in small membrane vesicles, a kind of globule encased in a lipid membrane. Atg9 vesicles serve as building blocks for the autophagosome waste bag. The second component, the Atg1 kinase complex, is a large protein complex consisting of five subunits. The scientists have now unraveled how both components are involved in the production of the autophagosome.

The scientists reproduced artificial Atg9 vesicle, the starting material for the waste bags, in a test tube. “By adding the Atg1 kinase complex we were able to show that one Atg1 kinase complex binds two Atg9 molecules, thus acting as a kind of clamp and connecting two Atg9 vesicles,” explains Yijian Rao, a member of the Molecular Membrane and Organelle Biology group headed by Thomas Wollert.

In the absence of waste two subunits of the Atg1 kinase complex can block the Atg9 binding site, thus inhibiting vesicle connections, which in turn prevents the formation of autophagosome waste bags. “This means the various subunits of the Atg1 kinase control membrane tethering and the production of the waste bag,” Rao further explains.

A small peptide that bears therapeutic potential is crucial for the medical application of the findings. The researchers were able to show that a certain peptide inhibits the Atg1 kinase complex in yeast cells. As Atg1 and Atg9 appear in both yeast cells and human cells the scientists assume that a similar compound can inhibit autophagy in human cells. Cancer cells use autophagy in order to survive chemotherapy. Current cancer drugs induce damage in the cancer cells in order to kill them. The downside of the treatment is that such drugs not only attack cancer but also healthy cells.

One way to make cancer cells more vulnerable is to inactivate autophagy. “The inhibitor of the autophagic glue prevents the production of the waste bags and stops autophagy with high precision. This peptide could provide the basis for the development of a new anti-cancer drug or improve the efficiency of chemotherapeutic drugs currently in use,” Rao summarizes.

 

[Denny Crane]

Who invented nylon?

 

[Further]

Who invented nylon?

If you don't understand the difference between research with financial potential and something like this then you missed the point of my post. When it comes to most medical scientific breakthroughs they are built on a backbone that was developed when profit was totally obscured. Years of research and dominoes falling from basic sciences before business will invest.

Denny, This is the crux of why I would never subscribe to your ardent, profit solves all, philosophy. I do respect your view, I realize your motives are admirable, but the strict libratarian philosophy is flawed at its core.

 

[MarAzul]

those who don't understand the concept

I don't understand how you think my representative is capable wisely choosing what research to invest in. He is about like a box of rocks, one side up until you turn it over.
I expect his vote would work about the same.

 

[Further]

I don't understand how you think my representative is capable wisely choosing what research to invest in. He is about like a box of rocks, one side up until you turn it over.
I expect his vote would work about the same.

Most representatives are fools, especially when it comes to understanding complicated scientific issues. That's why it's important to fund over the long run, have overarching goal in place, like understanding cell-cell communications or even just basic cancer research. It's why the NIH. SHOULD (I'd often doesn't) have long term goals instead of politically influenced goals.

 

[Further]

This just points out a few of the success stories, but also points out that overall public funding reaps massive rewards over the long haul.

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...n-on-investment-for-publicly-funded-research/

 

[MarAzul]

Most representatives are fools, especially when it comes to understanding complicated scientific issues. That's why it's important to fund over the long run, have overarching goal in place, like understanding cell-cell communications or even just basic cancer research. It's why the NIH. SHOULD (I'd often doesn't) have long term goals instead of politically influenced goals.

My last days on the job were in research, at the Almaden Research Lab.(IBM). The Government spent nothing on anything we did. Seems to me you are advocating communism for the research but capitalism for the production and profit. The public dumps money in until a good idea emerges, then it becomes private, where by the public pays the research and development cost in the price of the patented product. Very nice deal when you can swing it.

 

[Denny Crane]

If you don't understand the difference between research with financial potential and something like this then you missed the point of my post. When it comes to most medical scientific breakthroughs they are built on a backbone that was developed when profit was totally obscured. Years of research and dominoes falling from basic sciences before business will invest.

Denny, This is the crux of why I would never subscribe to your ardent, profit solves all, philosophy. I do respect your view, I realize your motives are admirable, but the strict libratarian philosophy is flawed at its core.

I don't think nylon was invented for profit. Privately funded basic research made a product that they could profit from. I'm quite sure most private research leads to no profit, but adds to Man's overall knowledge.

I don't see why government funding is required, it's just what you know.

Who invented the polio cure?

 

[Further]

My last days on the job were in research, at the Almaden Research Lab.(IBM). The Government spent nothing on anything we did. Seems to me you are advocating communism for the research but capitalism for the production and profit. The public dumps money in until a good idea emerges, then it becomes private, where by the public pays the research and development cost in the price of the patented product. Very nice deal when you can swing it.

Well, I kind of am, although when business want to invest they do end up paying into the research process too. But by benefitting business, it allows more political clout to get research done by the taxpayers. But basic research is not profitable in the short term, so it needs public financing. Sure, after 20+ years it could pay off big time, but companies have quarterly profits to pay attention to and can't afford invest often in very long term investments, especially ones without concrete payouts. I love that business can capitalize on science, it keeps us moving forward. I might prefer a bit less greed so healthcare isn't such a monumental expenditure, but the overall setup of public financing being capitalized on by business I think works very well.

 

[Further]

I don't think nylon was invented for profit. Privately funded basic research made a product that they could profit from. I'm quite sure most private research leads to no profit, but adds to Man's overall knowledge.

I don't see why government funding is required, it's just what you know.

Who invented the polio cure?

But most private research is much further along the lifespan towards product than basic research. That's the definition of basic research, research for the sake of knowledge, not research with a hope of profit. Private research does often lead nowhere (like public research) but it almost always has aspirations of specific monitory based advancements. But to build the foundation that real progress comes from, you need to search out knowledge for it's own sake and have confidence that over the long run, 20-50 years, it will end up helping society both financially and technologically/medically.

 

[MarAzul]

This just points out a few of the success stories, but also points out that overall public funding reaps massive rewards over the long haul.

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...n-on-investment-for-publicly-funded-research/

Interesting to see the Manhattan project in there. It usually is as a great example of government research. The AEC has on it website a piece or page about all the depleted Uranium they have available for people with a good idea of what to use it for. I came up with a dang good use, and then proceeded to try and get procession of some of the stuff.
After about a month, I gave it up. They built the website advertising the stuff, but noway in heaven or earth are you going to get any of it. That was 10 years ago. It is still stored, Oak Ridge as I recall. Some at Hanford too I think or it was. Big numbers of tons of this stuff!!! Very heavy!

 

[Denny Crane]

Nonsense.

Many companies spend as much as 15% on pure R&D. Much of it goes nowhere.

Driverless cars?

Crowd funding.

Philanthropists.

In fact, I believe the math is ridiculously in private funding's favor.

Government is something like 25% of the economy. Fortune 500 or 1000 is about the same.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-sources-and-uses-of-us-science-funding

258B private to $117 federal government.

Why are the top schools private? Harvard, Yale, MIT, Cal Tech, etc.?

 

[Further]

Interesting to see the Manhattan project in there. It usually is as a great example of government research. The AEC has on it website a piece or page about all the depleted Uranium they have available for people with a good idea of what to use it for. I came up with a dang good use, and then proceeded to try and get procession of some of the stuff.
After about a month, I gave it up. They built the website advertising the stuff, but noway in heaven or earth are you going to get any of it. That was 10 years ago. It is still stored, Oak Ridge as I recall. Some at Hanford too I think or it was. Big numbers of tons of this stuff!!! Very heavy!

ha, well Uranium is certainly nothing I've ever dealt with, and there are certainly safety risks involved with some research, but that's still the basic idea. I dealt with some radioactive tracers but in such small amounts I couldn't have damaged an Applebee's salad bar. I did however use quite a bit of Ricin as a model for Hemolytic-uremic syndrome (hamburger disease) but since the ricin was never aerosolized it was never much of a risk.

 

[Denny Crane]

Of that govt spending, $4 is spent on defense research for every $3 on non defense. $82B to $56B.

Defense R&D has a product motive, no?

 

[MarAzul]

I think works very well.

It kind of works well when you invest in a winner. My Representative is not so good at picking winners.

 

[MarAzul]

MIT, Cal Tech

Worked projects at both of these institutions, joint project with a private company both times. Well the Navy also involved in one.

 

[Further]

Nonsense.

Many companies spend as much as 15% on pure R&D. Much of it goes nowhere.

Driverless cars?

Crowd funding.

Philanthropists.

In fact, I believe the math is ridiculously in private funding's favor.

Government is something like 25% of the economy. Fortune 500 or 1000 is about the same.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-sources-and-uses-of-us-science-funding

4228B private to $100B government.

Why are the top schools private? Harvard, Yale, MIT, Cal Tech, etc.?

Nonsense, if you don't think that driverless cars have a profit motive than you are insane. I am not saying everything pays off, but almost all private research is driven by specific profit motives. That's fine, that's healthy, that's what a business should do. However, that only developed the second half of research, not the basic research the is needed to build foundational knowledge.

Yes, there are Philanthropists and they do wondrous work. They deserve credit, however just like business, they almost always apply their funds towards the end of the research struggle, where they see payoff in the way of medicine or tech. Not always, Phil Knight at OHSU invested heavily in cancer research. It is directed to a more middle of the path research schedule, not just at the end, so I certainly give him credit there.

But how many Phil Knights are there? The Druker lab at OHSU is based on his investment, but that's still only maybe 25% of the research at OHSU, and OHSU is the only cancer research facility that has that backing.

 

[Denny Crane]

Driverless cars are not an instant gratification kind of research.

I wonder how much federal money goes to Dow, Monsanto, or Lockheed Martin.

Sure, private money won't overly fund shrimp on a treadmill, but I don't think that should be funded with tax money. There is no public good.

 

[Denny Crane]

March of dimes funds only end stage research? I doubt that.

 

[Further]

Denny, look up basic science vs applied science. All of your examples are applied. And if you don't think Driverless car research haven't already started to pay off, you are crazy. But what about the non-sexy research, who is going to do the research on IL1-beta buildup via inhibition of protein synthesis? The answer is nobody but public funding because there are no perceived payoffs at the moment. However, 40 years from now, who knows. Most likely it won't lead anywhere of import, but if 1000 similarly obscured topics are pursued, perhaps one of them might one day lead to curing septic shock or being the basis for some new anti-inflammatory.

 

[Further]

March of dimes funds only end stage research? I doubt that.

As I said, there are some, but they account for only a small portion of whats needed.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42799/title/Follow-the-Funding/

Even without the federal research budget squeeze that academic scientists have witnessed in the past few years, Preminger says, life science was ripe for the flow of private funding into basic science labs via industry and venture capital investments. “The recent success of the biotech financial markets, with an unprecedented number of IPOs, has really brought a lot of money into the hands of younger companies that are focused on new biology, and are now valid sources of funding,” even for academics, she says. “This is not really related to the need. It just happens to be the case that the life sciences have been able to deliver very interesting breakthroughs and innovation that have fueled the industry and raised the appetite for more.”

In addition to attracting private funding, shifting the focus of a basic-research program to include thinking about applications of the biology under study can also reinvigorate the work itself, Preminger adds. “Sometimes federal funding makes [researchers] very comfortable in a basic-research domain, and so the ability to venture out of that and look at more translational work is, on the one hand, important if you’re going to raise alternative sources of funding, but it also becomes a goal in its own right, once they’re exposed.”

Barzilai agrees. “[Starting CohBar] created the opportunity to take some of our most promising research and get it out there so it could do good for the public.”

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, look up basic science vs applied science. All of your examples are applied. And if you don't think Driverless car research haven't already started to pay off, you are crazy. But what about the non-sexy research, who is going to do the research on IL1-beta buildup via inhibition of protein synthesis? The answer is nobody but public funding because there are no perceived payoffs at the moment. However, 40 years from now, who knows. Most likely it won't lead anywhere of import, but if 1000 similarly obscured topics are pursued, perhaps one of them might one day lead to curing septic shock or being the basis for some new anti-inflammatory.

There are no perceived payoffs in driverless cars at the moment.

IBM does amazing research.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms)

Profit? Not directly. Maybe in 40 years the technology will have practical use.

The math says tiny government and the private sector will outspend the combo of govt and industry by at least 25%.

I am not arguing that basic research is unnecessary. Just that the government is.

 

[Further]

Yes, there are articles that say

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42799/title/Follow-the-Funding/

Even without the federal research budget squeeze that academic scientists have witnessed in the past few years, Preminger says, life science was ripe for the flow of private funding into basic science labs via industry and venture capital investments. “The recent success of the biotech financial markets, with an unprecedented number of IPOs, has really brought a lot of money into the hands of younger companies that are focused on new biology, and are now valid sources of funding,” even for academics, she says. “This is not really related to the need. It just happens to be the case that the life sciences have been able to deliver very interesting breakthroughs and innovation that have fueled the industry and raised the appetite for more.”

In addition to attracting private funding, shifting the focus of a basic-research program to include thinking about applications of the biology under study can also reinvigorate the work itself, Preminger adds. “Sometimes federal funding makes [researchers] very comfortable in a basic-research domain, and so the ability to venture out of that and look at more translational work is, on the one hand, important if you’re going to raise alternative sources of funding, but it also becomes a goal in its own right, once they’re exposed.”

Barzilai agrees. “[Starting CohBar] created the opportunity to take some of our most promising research and get it out there so it could do good for the public.”

It's great when it happens, but I haven't seen it happen much at all. I know hundreds of scientists, quite a few in the public sector too, but not one of those in the private sector is doing true basic science research. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, according to your article it does, but so do 10 carrot diamonds, they just aren't common.

 

[Denny Crane]

As I said, there are some, but they account for only a small portion of whats needed.

American Cancer society contribute 25% as much as federal grants. That's just one of hundreds or thousands of charities giving cancer research grants.

I'd give more to ACS, except the government is taking 25% of my paycheck (you get the idea).

 

[Further]

There are no perceived payoffs in driverless cars at the moment.

IBM does amazing research.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms)

Profit? Not directly. Maybe in 40 years the technology will have practical use.

The math says tiny government and the private sector will outspend the combo of govt and industry by at least 25%.

I am not arguing that basic research is unnecessary. Just that the government is.

that hogwash, you can buy dozens of different cars right now that have tech developed from the driverless research. How about all the cars that break for you when you approach other vehicles, ones that correct your steering when you go over the line, ones that do driverless parallel parking? All that and a bunch of other tech are derived from the driverless research. Also, tons of great press and there is talk of actually fully functional driverless vehicles within the decade. So don't bullshit me and say there is no payoff, we all know that there has been a ton, but most importantly, we know that there were specific profit motives during the research. And I think that's good, I have no problem with that, but it should be in conjunction with research for research sake, especially in cell and microbiology and other areas meant to elucidate how our bodies work.

 

[Further]

American Cancer society contribute 25% as much as federal grants. That's just one of hundreds or thousands of charities giving cancer research grants.

I'd give more to ACS, except the government is taking 25% of my paycheck (you get the idea).

Last year, the ACS claimed it spent 72 percent of its nearly $1 billion budget on programs and 21 percent on fund raising. Borochoff said the split is closer to 62 percent and 31 percent since the ACS spent millions of programming dollars to pay for direct mailing solicitations such as this.

Accounting rules let it slide because of a couple of lines on the back warning donors to wear sunscreen.

"People, when they give their money to the cancer society, they are thinking, 'cure cancer,' help people that are struggling as a cancer victim," said Borochoff.

Our Channel 2 Investigation found donors on the hook for the charity's ballooning employee pension plan.

At last count, their obligation was more than $600 million, four times what the ACS spent on cancer research last year.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/american-cancer-society-where-does-your-money-go/nFX4j/

I give every year to the ACS, it's actually the only charity I always give to. After doing a bit more research, I might end up looking for an alternate next time around.

 

[Denny Crane]

that hogwash, you can buy dozens of different cars right now that have tech developed from the driverless research. How about all the cars that break for you when you approach other vehicles, ones that correct your steering when you go over the line, ones that do driverless parallel parking? All that and a bunch of other tech are derived from the driverless research. Also, tons of great press and there is talk of actually fully functional driverless vehicles within the decade. So don't bullshit me and say there is no payoff, we all know that there has been a ton, but most importantly, we know that there were specific profit motives during the research. And I think that's good, I have no problem with that, but it should be in conjunction with research for research sake, especially in cell and microbiology and other areas meant to elucidate how our bodies work.

I think you have things backward.

Auto manufacturers make massive investments in safety features. Maybe those are giving driverless a boost. There were CPUs in cars in the late 1970s and since.

Those car companies also build concept cars that never come to market. They don't intend them to.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/american-cancer-society-where-does-your-money-go/nFX4j/

I give every year to the ACS, it's actually the only charity I always give to. After doing a bit more research, I might end up looking for an alternate next time around.

I do. Just less than I could if the government wasn't taking big chunks of my pay checks to pay for shrimp on a treadmill and bombing Lybia. Etc.

 

[Further]

I think you have things backward.

Auto manufacturers make massive investments in safety features. Maybe those are giving driverless a boost. There were CPUs in cars in the late 1970s and since.

Those car companies also build concept cars that never come to market. They don't intend them to.

I really have no way to discuss this topic with you if you can't even realize that car companies invest in driverless tech with the hope of profit. THat's just absurd Denny. Just fucking ridiculous. I could make post after post, but I could also point out that trees have leaves and eggs come from chickens. Oh wait, are you going to point out that some trees have needles and quails lay eggs too? It's easy to argue, but not so easy to actually have a discussion sometimes.