Industry vs. academic/gov research
TL;DR there are no more Bell labs. Academic and government agency research is vital for the advancement of science and technology.
This is a partial dialog with Rajini Rao about my personal experience with industry lead or influenced research vs. academic or government research. (Too lazy to write a fresh post). I left the blood substitute field and learned medical imaging because of the state of research for blood substitutes. Blood substitute is a convenient name, just like artificial blood; it’s not really meant to replace whole blood. The research is really about Hemoglobin Based Oxygen Carriers or HBOC. People tried perfluorocarbons but it’s not allosteric like Hb. So you need a lot of oxygen which can be a fire hazard and it causes other issues. Some of the surfactants cause allergies in some people. So the field’s focus is on Hb. Free Hb falls apart and clogs up the kidneys. So Baxter Healthcare and others tried to cross link Hb to keep it as a tetramer. It turns out, that’s not enough. So people, like me, tried polymerizing Hb. I left the field before finding out if any of the large molecular weight formulations had other problems. I suspect there are still other issues since nothing is on the market yet. Oh, and NIH and DoD basically stopped funding research in this area.
Baxter Healthcare’s Hemassist failed clinical trial. There were several preclinical studies showing that it didn’t really work using the same compound made by the Army. Baxter claimed it was not the same formulation and proceeded with the clinical trial. Several patients died, prompting Baxter to halt the trial prematurely. I suspect that some of the people doing research with Baxter did not publish the negative results prominently enough.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2728196/
From this review: “The study also criticizes the lack of timely data put forth by the companies and the lack of published studies. Both Hemopure and Polyheme published studies only several years after the completion of their trials. Additionally, unpublished studies render a thorough IRB review of trials difficult. Natanson et al. argue for the timely and complete disclosure of data to the scientific community to avoid exposing the public to unnecessary risks.”
From Rajini Rao: Oh I see, thanks. Interesting problem. It’s more about protein engineering of Hb to make it both efficient and stable as well as nontoxic. The little red cell does a good job of that.
The RBC could be fodder for the intelligent design folks. Well except for sickle cell. I’ve said in other threads when conservatives say that private industry can do better than government funded research such as NIH, NSF, or NASA, just look at Baxter, they are a huge company that dumped millions into to blood substitute research. What happened? People died in clinical trials and we still don’t have a product. The other startups have either failed or have stalled. The difference is private industry has to answer to shareholders and they don’t have to know why or how something works. They just have to find something that works. Academic research aims to find out why and how something works so that we can do it better in the future. So yea, without government funding, we haven’t been able to do better than RBCs.
A less personal example is in today’s Chicago Tribune.
TL;DR The flame retardant industry misused and misquoted research to say that flame retardants have a 15-fold increase in “escape time”. The author of one of the papers says “The fire just laughs at it”.
#scienceeveryday








