[intro music]
Hello, and welcome to Episode Twenty-Nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery, the podcast of the MS Discovery Forum. I’m your host, Dan Keller.
This week’s podcast features an interview with Dr. Monica Carson on funding research in MS. But to begin, here is a brief summary of some of the latest developments on the MS Discovery Forum at msdiscovery.org.
Glatiramer acetate and the interferon betas appear to be clinically similar, according to a new study in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal. This study follows on the heels of a Cochrane meta-analysis we covered earlier in 2014 that found similar results. Instead of performing a meta-analysis, though, the researchers of the MSJ article used data from over 3,000 patients in the MS Base database. They found very little difference in annualized relapse rates over 10 years, though glatiramer acetate and subcutaneous interferon beta 1-a did eke out a statistical win over the other interferons.
Together, MSDF and our non-profit publisher, Accelerated Cure for Multiple Sclerosis, are committed to speeding the pathway toward a cure for MS. Among the news and resources we provide is a list of more than two dozen tissue repositories, including one maintained by Accelerated Cure. Visit our website and click on the “tissue repositories” button under the “research resources” tab to browse through repositories from all over the globe.
Another part of our goal in working faster toward a cure is to provide a place where researchers can share their experiences and expertise with one another and also debate controversial issues in MS research. We encourage researchers and clinicians from all disciplines to log onto our forum and discuss their latest research, techniques, and discoveries. We also encourage you to help keep us up-to-date on your latest work by e-mailing us directly. Send information you’d like to share on job postings, meetings, funding opportunities, or other news to editor at msdiscovery.org.
[transition music]
Now to the interview. Dr. Monica Carson is director of the center for glial-neural interactions at the University of California, Riverside. She met with MSDF editor-in-chief, Bob Finn, to talk about the current state of funding in MS research.
[Interview]
Interviewer – Robert Finn
Dr. Carson, welcome.
Interviewee – Monica Carson
Thank you.
MSDF
So let’s stipulate that there’s never enough money available for funding any area of research adequately. On a scale from bad to awful to dire, what is the state of funding for MS research?
Dr. Carson
I would say it’s better than maybe other areas, but all areas of research, I feel, are dire, so I do not want to make MS research sound worse. It’s probably actually better because individuals can see the value of research in disease-oriented research programs. So in a worse situation, it’s good.
MSDF
So there are essentially three sources of research funding. There’s the government; there are nonprofits; and then there are for-profit companies, mostly pharmaceutical companies in the biomedical area. How are each of these doing in funding MS research?
Dr. Carson
There are objectives in all of these. There’s always been a long-term funding priority in NIH NINDS. There’s also out of various objectives that are perhaps nontraditional for those of us who came up as NIH-funded investigators, such as the DOD and various congressionally-mandated research programs. There are much more funding, I think, also in private foundations. Funding in biotech and pharmaceutical, I think, has been the one area that has dropped severely over the years, and that one is not an area that I think one can count on, that is going to be something targeted when you have a proposal. And then you do have to work through the ethics and various other aspects of that.
That said, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has really shown a very nice model of partnering with pharmaceuticals with their Fast Forward program. I’ve served on those panels and they are really wonderful models of projects that are brought in that have sufficient IP – intellectual property – protection of the ideas brought in that could be moved Fast Forward by a partnership with pharmaceutical and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. So there are targeted areas, but of course it’s going to be very more modest in general funding overall for the average investigator, whereas the more traditional governmental and private foundations are going to be our primary sources.
MSDF
How do you account for the drop-off in pharmaceutical company funding?
Dr. Carson
Well, I am not an expert in economics, in the costs that it takes to take something to market, but I would speculate that it has to do with the difficulty of getting drugs that work in the brain that pass all the various measures of blood-brain barrier, unexpected toxicities and side effects. And so I think this area of pharmaceuticals has had great expense but great dropouts. So for great expense there hasn’t been a lot of drugs coming out except in targeted areas. I would say recently it’s been very exciting about the therapies that are coming out in MS research.
MSDF
So do these three sources – government, nonprofit, for-profit – do they tend to support different types of research?
Dr. Carson
Yes, very much so. I think as we very much know, you go to NIH, it’s a good scientific idea, needs to impact health, could be a basic science issue that applies to MS but also might apply to Alzheimer’s diseases, neural inflammation, or a variety of other diseases in childhood. When you get to a private foundation, the private foundation has taken donations or raised money very specifically for a disease, and so different private foundations are going to be focused on how much other research is applied to the disease, but also how translational it is. How important that translational element is going to be specific to the different foundation. But all of the private foundations are going to be very specific that this is not just a good idea, but is a good idea for their diseases, specifically multiple sclerosis.
MSDF
So let’s say you are a researcher, possibly a young researcher, searching for his or her first research funding. How do you strategize the search for research funding?
Dr. Carson
Very good question. I don’t think there’s one right answer to this and one has to look at one’s own portfolio of research, one’s resources, and what one can actually deliver after one has made a promise in a grant proposal. And I think you need to as a young researcher get advice from senior researchers and investigators in your area in your field to see how to go forward. But very often the best way is to take advantage of the pilot grants, the junior investigative grants that are really targeted to getting you off the ground and can have ideas that are high-risk, high-impact.
There are also many of these pilot grants from the private foundations, such as the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has a pilot project; it’s aimed at getting folks to get their early funding in MS to sort of capture them as a long-term MS researcher. So I think the pilot grants are a good way to start to get that bolus of research-funded publications, demonstrate your productivity level so that you get the larger grants from NIH.
MSDF
So let’s talk specifically about the National MS Society and Erase MS, which are the two large nonprofits that you’ve been involved with. How do their funding philosophies differ?
Dr. Carson
Well, I’m not really ready at this point to talk quite about more about the Erase MS, because I’ve just joined their scientific advisory board and I am about to start participating in their review cycles. And so I think it’s best to go through that cycle a few more times before commenting on that. But I would say it’s going to be very focused. They are also looking at bringing together research centers, and the Erase MS is very much focused on therapies and things that are going to move things forward quite fast. So in that sense, the MS Society is a more longstanding society; it has been on my mind one of the best models of collecting money, giving out money to researchers, making sure the research is very specific to MS. And this goes back to my prior point. Having been on MS study sections, it’s very important for them – this can’t be just a good idea – it has to be applying to MS.
So one of the things I think is the other very big difference between these is the MS Society also has a lot of different types of grant funding programs – these pilots which I just mentioned; training grants; transition grants which are very important to the junior investigator which will take you being from a senior post-doc to an independent position; as well as larger grants, 3-year grants, that are sufficient to carry a major project.
MSDF
So there’s a perception in the public, I think among scientists as well, that some of the big disease societies spend 90% of their funding on administration and 10% on funding research. How does the National MS Society stack up in that regard?
Dr. Carson
I would say the MS Society is a model of what most disease societies should be. I have been impressed by them from when I entered the research field starting off in MS and being funded – so just for conflict of interest, I was funded at 5M as a post-doctoral fellow – and what I have been impressed because I have had colleagues, I have had neighbors who develop MS or children who have MS, so I’ve seen it from both sides. I am very impressed how they keep a very lean, mean administration, they keep reinvestigating how they should be distributing the money.
They think about how much of the money is really going toward patient causes, as things about wheelchairs and thinking about those things, but also in the research; what’s the right time and how much to give the pilots to just generate these, you know, high-risk but potentially high-impact projects and keeping the money small. They look at things for these transition awards to really capture people when they saw that this was a dropout period that people were trying to have a problem launching. They are the ones when you are trying to get that NIH grant and you’ve been a successful investigator, they are focused on MS and they get these nice, shorter three-year grants. And they are very focused. And sometimes if you’re thinking it may be a little too harsh, but saying that it’s MS-focused.
So if you are somebody who’s a donor, you should be very happy with the money that you’re giving. And they’re constantly reevaluating the distribution of the dollars, the impact, and, hence, they came up with the Fast Forward. How do they facilitate the problem of pharmaceuticals not bringing enough drugs to therapies, how could they aid this process? Hence, fast forward; trying to bring in nice grants, innovative grants, linking them up with pharmaceuticals to move things forward. So, in a nutshell, they are very milestone oriented not to keep being their own operation alive, but they can’t cure MS to make your life with MS as palliative. You have as much retention of your motor and other capabilities and that you can arrest disease process and perhaps reverse it. So they are very milestone oriented, and I’ve had high respect for how they keep re-self-examining the organization.
MSDF
Well, I’ve come to the end of my prepared questions. Is there anything that I haven’t asked about MS research funding that I should have asked, or anything you’d like to add?
Dr. Carson
I wouldn’t be afraid of entering the field because of the funding. I think there are multiple ways to have funding. And sometimes you won’t go through the traditional MS societies, sometimes it’ll just be a great idea and you’ll find some other kind of innovative idea. And the last thing I would say that you haven’t asked is that we’re past the time of being the lone-wolf researcher; it really is time to come together, as we have at the symposium here, is taking diverse experts, coming together and melding together projects. These are the ones that are going to be the most competitive in a sense, not only of getting funding, but if we’re really looking at curing diseases, are the most likely to stand the test of time with the diversity of opinions and eyes looking at the problem.
MSDF
Dr. Carson, thank you very much.
Dr. Carson
Thank you.
[transition music]
Thank you for listening to Episode Twenty-Nine of Multiple Sclerosis Discovery. This podcast was produced by the MS Discovery Forum, MSDF, the premier source of independent news and information on MS research. MSDF’s executive editor is Robert Finn. Msdiscovery.org is part of the non-profit Accelerated Cure for Multiple Sclerosis. Robert McBurney is our President and CEO, and Hollie Schmidt is vice president of scientific operations.
Msdiscovery.org aims to focus attention on what is known and not yet known about the causes of MS and related conditions, their pathological mechanisms, and potential ways to intervene. By communicating this information in a way that builds bridges among different disciplines, we hope to open new routes toward significant clinical advances.
We’re interested in your opinions. Please join the discussion on one of our online forums or send comments, criticisms, and suggestions to editor@msdiscovery.org.
[outro music]