Ebola vaccine development (or lack thereof)

[James T. McKinley]

In article <kiltyD8n1Iy.FzH at netcom.com> kilty at netcom.com (Kathleen Richards) writes:
>Newsgroups: bionet.virology

>James T. McKinley (mckinley at msupa.pa.msu.edu) wrote:
>: Dr. Murphy's reply sounds as if it is mostly a question of money to
>: develop a vaccine for Ebola, and that given how few people are killed by 
>: Ebola each year, it's not worth it to those who hold the purse strings 
>: (the US government I guess), too bad for the folks in Zaire.  I guess the
>: same applies to the dengue virus and others closer to home. 

>I don't think it is that cut and dried.  There is only so much money
>and only so many researchers and labs to go around.  It simply is not
>possible to work on everything at once.  It is always heartbreaking to
>see the human cost of something like ebola and wonder why there is no
>magic bullet to keep us safe, but we have to put it into perspective.
>There are diseases out there that *were* running rampant and killing
>and maiming many more people than ebola ever has (e.g. smallpox, polio)
>that we *have* conquered (at least in their present form).  Researchers
>are forced to put their efforts where they can do the most good!  It is
>simply a matter of resource allocation with scant resources.  There are
>many steps that come way before being able to create a vaccine as well.

Umm... I don't really think I said anything that conflicts with your response.
With limited funds, you do what you can.  Maybe you just don't like the way I 
said it.

>Hours and months and years of research on the virus must come first in
>most cases (sometimes serendipity plays a hand and you get lucky, more
>often not).  This type of research is undoubtedly going on and has been
>going on regarding things like ebola, marburg, hanta, etc.  Magic bullets
>are the end result of a long and complicated and expensive process and
>sometimes the result of that process actually is the knowledge that there
>can be *no* magic bullet for a particular disease (at least given our
>current level of technology).

>-- 
>----
>kathleen richards   email: kilty at netcom.com 

>   ~Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug!~
>                                                  -dire straits


Whoa, hey, I'm not pointing fingers at anybody.  I'm very greatful for the 
work of medical/bio professionals.  Also, being a Ph.D. candidate in high 
energy physics who recently had the grant that supports him reduced and is now 
forced to do a TA whilst trying to finish my thesis, I know how government 
funding can be fickle.  Our collaboration recently co-discovered the top 
quark, and yet many grants are being cut.  And then there's the SSC...  
Anyway, I'm not trying to say HEP is as useful to the public as virology, but 
it's still good science.  It's just really unfortunate that if methods exist 
that may very well be able to develop a vaccine for something like Ebola  (or 
whatever) we can't find the funds to work on it.  Perhaps national defense 
needs to be redefined to include things which could kill us as easily and 
maybe more horribly than foreign governments.  Then research funding might 
follow.

                                                              Jim