Translational cancer research wants use existing findings of basic science and bring them faster into the clinical development of new drugs. I might be wrong, but it looks to me that translational researchers wrongly assume that the existing knowledge on cancer is enough to develop really sufficient therapies. It appears to me that stopping basic science during the last years even will prevent translational research in the future to develop any new therapies.
I am not at all against "translational medicine", but I don't consider it a good idea to stop completely the basic research of an institute and to invest all the research money for applied medical research. Since there is no chance to develop new basic research at such an institution from where will come the patents to check for future possible applications in ten to twenty years?
I guess translational research is very important to formulate what we are doing in laboratories and bring it down to the clinical settings. Nevertheless, research on the mechanism of how these therapies are developed should be given the same priority. Basic research is like a resource to fuel up translational research. In the nearest future we, for sure, will run out of this resource and, subsequently, we will lack the knowledge to develop novel therapies. Even if we look to the current situation, most of the translational research projects that go beyond laboratories to clinical trials, they fail in Phase I or II. We all want to treat patients and make people's life much easier and painless but it is the responsibility of research directors and group leaders to make sure that their researchers work on mechanisms within translational research projects.
Hi,
I think both translational and basic science research should co-exist.
For a translational therapy/science to develop one has to address basic science related questions, and without basic science translational therapy can't progress.
Biggest example : The work done by Nobel laureate Sir John B Gurdon and Shinya Yamakana, for showing us how mature cells can be converted back to stem cells.
Stem cells discovery was purely due to research on developmental embryology, hence is huge part of basic science research, converting adult cells to induced pluripotent stem cells tend to be more on translational realm.
Thank u,
Polly
Robert,
Following your statement "... translational researchers wrongly assume that the existing knowledge on cancer is enough to develop really sufficient therapies".
I think we talk about passing through certain grades or overcoming barriers. You probably would agree that not all basic research end up as translational research. Right? In the same way, some translational research would end up right where it is without progressing to clinical levels. I do differentiate between what appears to be very promising and is almost (!) ready to be used routinely in clinical settings ( aka, translational research) and what has been used routinely in clinical environment with well known results and satisfactory outcomes (aka, established clinical procedures). Being translational doesn't automatically mean that it's ready for a wide deployment in clinics. So, I wouldn't worry much about seeing so many translational research trials, because only the end result of these trials will determine the final fate of a particular research direction. Validation of viability is really the main outcome of multiple translational studies in my mind.
I am not at all against "translational medicine", but I don't consider it a good idea to stop completely the basic research of an institute and to invest all the research money for applied medical research. Since there is no chance to develop new basic research at such an institution from where will come the patents to check for future possible applications in ten to twenty years?
Robert,
This is a valid point - I wish you could put it somehow in the original question. It all boils down to the very "old" question of "what is a right balance between applied and basic research?" And this balance is affected by financial, geographical, political etc. reasons. I'd say that since the basic research is considered a "luxury" (sic!) at critical times, it goes down first. Are we winning or losing the battle? On a global scale, it appears to me that we are doing OK (so far). However, locally one can witness significant deviations from the average. Your arguments are fine, but so can be the arguments from the other side. The danger would be to shift the balance significantly on a global scale.
Perhaps I really see it wrong and only the really good institutions may be able to afford and support basic science, and those which had not so much success in several decades should really better stop. But should they then really try translational medicine - with no expectable support from own basic research in the future? Maybe they can return back to start basic science in a few decades...
I think that's exactly what we we'll see. It reminds me times of the telecom boom in 90'
that was actually fueled by exciting results of the basic research. Everybody rushed into the applied field hoping to attract attention of wealthy telecom companies. Once it was over, applied and basic research returned to normal levels. I think we're witnessing the pendulum in the "hype" state for cancer research...
Basic research enlightens the way to translational research. Translational research provides new challanges to basic research. These two paramenters are like positive feedback loop. One enhance the other. Therefore in my opinion, both are equally improtant. They boost each other
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Oncology
- Cancer Research