Wonder can a 100 million fix me?

[moneymaker744]

I was wondering if i came up with a 100 million can i be fixed. Im talking about using the best everything.

[Fly_Pelican_Fly]

100 million US dollars I assume? 100 million Zimbabwean dollars wont get you fixed

Seriously though, it would depend on how you spend it. If spent wisely you could advance the field dramatically without a doubt. But give it to one of our esteemed SCI Organisations then you might find the sum disappears into the abyss.

I have heard on the grapevine that there is a wealthy SCI who has personally paid a number of labs $$$$$$ to 'fix' him. Will it work? I dont know.

One innovative way to spend $100m would be to create a $50m x-prize to cure paralysis and use $50m to fund several teams to compete and win the prize. Incentive-based science!

[chris arnold]

We often talk of funding. Although the emphasis in disability funding appears to be care centered, we cannot pretend that a lot of money has not gone into research. Just how much goes into admin. executive posts, glossy hype, plush offices etc is always a something we all must ask ourselves. I've heard it commented time and again how luxurious some charity "fronts" are, and from experience I know that we offered a stack of coat hangers to one charity shop, only to be told that they were not quite stylish enough! What's that all about?

[DupeNet]

always wanted to ask this question..

[moneymaker744]

im so serious tho. Im taking bout using the best of the best of everything. Scientist, human neuron stem cells, Wise Young, Hans Kirstaid, TOP SURGENS, EVERYTHING.

[Fly_Pelican_Fly]

Originally Posted by moneymaker744

im so serious tho. Im taking bout using the best of the best of everything. Scientist, human neuron stem cells, Wise Young, Hans Kirstaid, TOP SURGENS, EVERYTHING.

moneymaker744 - I guess the crux of my message was - we are not yet in a position to back a horse to the tune of $100m.

Hence why the x-prize is an innovative way of incentivising science, encouraging collaboration through competition and bringing more talented researchers into the field.

Or maybe a better answer would be to stick the money in the bank and fund science via the interest accrued.

[comad]

Originally Posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly

....
Hence why the x-prize is an innovative way of incentivising science, encouraging collaboration through competition and bringing more talented researchers into the field....

What is the real world behind the Lab's curtains, we can only guess.

Is there any collaboration or fierce competition in this field among teams, doctor's, scientists... and what X-prize would change.... Wise?

[Wise Young]

Originally Posted by comad

What is the real world behind the Lab's curtains, we can only guess.

Is there any collaboration or fierce competition in this field among teams, doctor's, scientists... and what X-prize would change.... Wise?

Comad,

As some here know, I believe in collaboration rather than competition. Competition provides motivation for people to work harder but competition without collaboration wastes effort, time, and money. There are many ways to increase motivation other than competition. Giving a $100 million prize after the cure is sort of like putting the cart in front of the horse. There is no dearth of people who want to take therapies to clinical trials. The problem is that they cannot find willing investors to fund the trials.

Having a $100 million X-prize would not help us run the ChinaSCINet or the SCINetUSA trials any faster or better. The money will be coming afterwards, not before or during the trial when that funding is crucial for initiating and running trials efficiently. Without funds, we are constantly making hard decisions to save money, spend most of our time raising funds, and must slow down the trials due to lack of funding. We cannot pay for all hospital costs and therefore do the trials in hospitals that can subsidize the trials. We don't have enough staff to oversee as many trials as we would like.

On the other hand, we are lucky that a company (Stemcyte) is donating the umbilical cord blood cells and processing of the cells to our trials. If we had to obtain and process the cells on our own, it would have delayed the trial by several years. Miami Project, for example, is processing the cells on their own and it has taken them years to establish a GMP lab to process the Schwann cells. Doing the trials in China is advantageous because trial costs are lower, large numbers of patients are available, and the doctors are experienced and enthusiastic about cell transplantation. In the U.S., trial costs may be 5 times higher, there are fewer patients, and most doctors have little or no experience with cell transplants. Data from ChinaSCINet will save much time and preclinical animal studies usually required for FDA approval of trials.

There is an effort underway to propose and fund an X-prize for spinal cord injury. The group has been meeting to discuss the criteria for the prize. it is a difficult issue. How would one define success worthy of a $100 million prize? Unlike getting a spaceship into space, curing spinal cord injury is not well defined. I agree that an X-prize would increase publicity and awareness. These may help attract investors to put their funds into clinical trials. In my opinion, however, it needs something more to really get clinical trials going.

I think that an X-prize would be most effective if it were staged and combined with a clinical trial program that can compare the best proposed treatments. For example, I have been thinking of encouraging research groups and companies to apply to do clinical trial on their therapies. For example, we can announce that we will compare the top three combination therapies for chronic spinal cord injury in ChinaSCINet and SCINetUSA. Companies or research groups (like the Miami Project) would apply to ChinaSCINet and SCINetUSA to test their therapies. The best therapies are chosen and the winner of the trial would get the prize.

Wise.

[paolocipolla]

Originally Posted by Wise Young

Comad,

As some here know, I believe in collaboration rather than competition. Competition provides motivation for people to work harder but competition without collaboration wastes effort, time, and money. There are many ways to increase motivation other than competition. Giving a $100 million prize afterward the cure is sort of like putting the cart in front of the horse. There is no dearth of people who want to take therapies to clinical trials. The problem is that they cannot find willing investors to fund the trials.

Having a $100 million X-prize would not help us run the ChinaSCINet or the SCINetUSA trials any faster or better. The money will be coming afterwards, not before or during the trial when that funding is crucial for initiating and running trials efficiently. Without funds, we are constantly making hard decisions to save money, spend most of our time raising funds, and must slow down the trials due to lack of funding. We cannot pay for all hospital costs and therefore do the trials in hospitals that can subsidize the trials. We don't have enough staff to oversee as many trials as we would like.

On the other hand, we are lucky that a company (Stemcyte) is donating the umbilical cord blood cells and processing of the cells to our trials. If we had to obtain and process the cells on our own, it would have delayed the trial by several years. Miami Project, for example, is processing the cells on their own and it has taken them years to establish a GMP lab to process the Schwann cells. Doing the trials in China is advantageous because trial costs are lower, large numbers of patients are available, and the doctors are experienced and enthusiastic about cell transplantation. In the U.S., trial costs may be 5 times higher, there are fewer patients, and most doctors have little or no experience with cell transplants. Data from ChinaSCINet will save much time and preclinical animal studies usually required for FDA approval of trials.

There is an effort underway to propose and fund an X-prize for spinal cord injury. The group has been meeting to discuss the criteria for the prize. How would one define success worthy of a $100 million prize. Unlike getting a spaceship into space, curing spinal cord injury is not well defined. An X-prize would increase publicity and awareness. These may help attract investors to put their funds into clinical trials. In my opinion, however, it needs something more to really get clinical trials going.

I think that an X-prize would be most effective if it were staged and combined with a clinical trial program that can compare the best proposed treatments. For example, I have been thinking of encouraging research groups and companies to apply to do clinical trial on their therapies. For example, we can announce that we will compare the top three combination therapies for chronic spinal cord injury in ChinaSCINet and SCINetUSA. Companies or research groups (like the Miami Project) would apply to ChinaSCINet and SCINetUSA to test their therapies. The best therapies are chosen and the winner of the trial would get the prize.

Wise.

Wise,

do you think that an X-Prize could hurt SCI research?

If yes, how in your opinion?

[cripple4life]

you know if someone did find a cure. they would win the nobel prize be on time mag as the man of the year also they will become bill gates rich! this is why a lot of researchers don't share info with others as they claim.