Brain and Spinal Cord Injury Research: The Needs for New and Reliable Funding, Efficient and Collaborative Studies

According to researchers Anita Buchli, Ph.D. and Martin Schwab, Ph.D in their new article, The Real Brain Drain: Unmet Neuro Therapies, more funding and efficiency are needed in the search for neurological disease and trauma treatments. As the numbers show, there are hundreds of thousands of people across the world living with spinal cord injuries and roughly ten times more with traumatic brain injuries. While there are clearly numerous human, social, and economic incentives to finding new treatments, or even cures, pharmaceutical companies are cutting back their research of these neurological disorders due to unsuccessful past investments. As the authors note, this “reluctance to pursue drugs for neurological disorders” is unfortunately happening “just as our understanding of brain plasticity has exploded.” Exciting new findings demonstrate that the brain and spinal cord appear to be “dynamic and adaptable biological systems,” sparking hope that they are more capable of recovery than once believed.

In wake of the pharma companies retracting funding for treatments, it may pay off to prod other donors whose incentives align with finding effective new treatments. One potential source could be insurance companies. Currently, an insurance company incurs $2 million in expenses a year covering one individual living with a spinal cord injury; clearly, they would benefit significantly with new treatments that improve recovery and lifestyle.

However, the authors realize that “we can’t just throw money and resources at the problem; we must use them wisely.” First, to increase efficiency and collaboration, they advocate for greater transparency and cooperation between researchers and clinicians. The current culture, where each side has it’s own data, information, and terminology, does not promote the necessary environment for effectively building on new ideas and discoveries. “When spinal cord researchers began organizing retreats and workshops to bring together basic researchers and clinicians,” say Buchli and Schwab, “they saw first-hand how little each side knows about how the other works…each side had a completely different language to describe the same scenario.” To smooth out these kinks, it would benefit all to create a concrete network uniting the research and clinical scientists

Second, trials of new drugs and treatments need to take a more narrow focus—with smaller numbers of patients allowing for more in-depth analysis of the data.  By conducting these pin-pointed studies that focus “on well-selected populations (with tens of patients, not hundreds) and concentrating on a few centers, such trials would cost a few million dollars rather than the $50 million or more needed for one large trial,” which seems to be the industry norm.

To ensure that spinal cord and brain injury treatments are adequately researched, we should heed the above advice to increase research and clinical efficiency and look for new, reliable sources of funding. Click this link to read “The Real Brain Drain: Unmet Neuro Therapies” as posted on The Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation’s website.