FasterCures: It’s not just our name, it’s our mission

By Margaret Anderson, COO, FasterCures
Six years ago, FasterCures started working on creating a medical research system for the 21st Century that saves lives by saving time. It’s a lofty goal. But one that must be met without compromise. Millions of people who have been diagnosed with a deadly or debilitating disease have compromised enough. There is not a moment – or a life – to lose.

FasterCures is an “action tank” for a reason – we focus on clearing the path between an idea for treatment and getting a treatment to the patient. That path is no straight line. Akin to being in the middle of a maze, we know there is an opening in the end. This maze has multiple paths leading to the ultimate goal. Some of the dead-ends we hit are actually facades – enough to slow you down, stop you at times, but with the right tools, and more importantly, the right perspectives, these artificial, arbitrary barriers can be overcome to clear the path to faster progress.

Barriers to progress in accelerating cures exist all along the research continuum – from basic research to development, from medical education to medical practice, from investment capital to human capital. We’ve spent our first six years identifying and analyzing these barriers and developing innovative and relevant programs to overcome these barriers.

Our commitment is steadfast as we continue to implement tangible programs and develop pragmatic solutions. Our eye is on the prize as we nimbly respond to shifting markets, an ever-evolving policy landscape, and medical breakthroughs that disrupt tried and tested approaches. We work hard to transform medical research so it could work faster and more efficiently. Here’s a glimpse of some of our programmatic efforts that allow us to do this:
(please click on image for printer-friendly version of the FasterCures Blueprint for Change Update)


We all share an interest in finding improved treatments and cures. Most of us know someone – a father, sister, child, friend or colleague – who has suffered from or died from a terrible disease. No one is immune. Much remains to be done. Get involved with FasterCures today.

Passion Capital at BIO

by Margaret Anderson, COO, FasterCures
Is venture philanthropy the new venture capital? The FasterCures-organized session at BIO focused on this question and highlighted the similarities and differences in the two. The panel featured a terrific lineup of:

• Robert Beall, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
• Katie Hood, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Disease
• Eric Olson, Vertex Pharmaceuticals
• Mark Simon, Williver Group

First up, the topic of “how bad is it out there with respect to funding?” Mark Simon has been involved in raising capital for life science companies for years and sees venture philanthropy as a great option for companies , especially when you see the statistics of how few biotechs currently have enough cash for long-term stability. According to BIO, 99 companies are operating with less than six months' worth of cash, which accounts for 25 percent of all public U.S. biotech companies. The vast majority of America's biotechnology companies are small, research and development focused companies with fewer than 100 employees. Simon was concerned that we stand to lose valuable scientific opportunities in biotech as funding continues to be elusive.

As for how the venture philanthropy groups view their mission, it turns out failure is an option. “There will be failures, this funding from organizations like ours is not a panacea,” said Bob Beall of the CF Foundation. Eric Olson of Vertex spoke of the pass-off from CFF where they take the funding baton after CFF funds discovery. The synergy with Vertex and the other companies CFF partners with wasn’t always so easily found. Turns out Bob had to pass through the phase where there were a lot of calls unanswered from biotech in his early days at CFF. Expectations must be realistic on both sides for these relationships to work, reflected Beall.

Katie Hood of the Fox Foundation talked about how one size doesn’t fit all. They are driven by different imperatives in terms of their disease state as well as their pipeline , which has resulted in different types of relationships with companies; what they have in common with foundations like CFF is that they are trying to remove risk for companies potentially interested in investing in their disease. Katie also discussed PD Online, which they are launching to provide a collaborative space for discussion and problem-solving in PD research.
Even though philanthropic research funding accounts for only two percent of total health research funding, it's a small but substantial source for novel, high-risk research that might not be able to compete successfully for public funds. It fills gaps in funding research that is high risk but also with potential of high return.

So, is venture philanthropy the new venture capital? Not exactly, but it is an exciting new kind of collaboration that can bring benefits -- funding, but also intelligence, relationships, and access to patients -- to companies and to foundations.

FasterCures Comments on the National Institutes of Health’s Draft Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research

Human embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for millions of Americans suffering from many diseases and disorders. Thanks to substantial private and State investment in this area of research over the past decade, significant strides have been made. Expanded investment by the Federal Government will rapidly accelerate progress, however, the final guidelines issued by NIH to govern federally funded research must build on this progress so that cures and new therapies can get to patients as quickly as possible. The final guidelines should not create new bureaucratic hurdles that will slow the pace of progress.

We are pleased that these draft guidelines, specifically in section IIB, would appear to permit federal funding of research using stem cell lines previously not eligible for federal funding and for new lines created in the future from embryos donated by patients no longer needing them for infertility treatments. However, as drafted, Section IIB does not ensure that some currently existing stem cell lines will meet the new criteria and thus research using them would be ineligible for federal funding. It is important that the final guidelines allow federal funds for research using all stem cell lines created by following ethical practices at the time they were derived – essentially “grandfathering in” many existing stem cell lines. If cell lines were derived in accordance with the existing guidelines at the time – those of either the National Academy of Sciences or the International Society for Stem Cell Research, which were quite stringent – and their derivation was approved by either an Embryonic Stem Cell Oversight Committee or an Institutional Review Board, then research on those lines should be eligible for federal funding. Otherwise, we will have negated six years’ worth of progress in stem cell research.

We also note with concern that the draft guidelines do not permit federal funding of research using stem cell lines derived from sources other than excess IVF embryos, specifically through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), also known as “therapeutic cloning.” We understand that no human stem cell lines have yet been successfully derived and maintained through SCNT, and therefore it may not yet be considered necessary to grapple with this issue. But it must be recognized that the scientific community widely believes that the potential use of genetically customized or characterized stem cells will be of the greatest value in research to more effectively treat and even cures diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and multiple sclerosis. In addition, it will be critical to use SCNT in treating patients with their stem cell lines to minimize immune rejection. It is therefore essential that NIH not hamstring its ability to continue to monitor developments in this field and to update these guidelines as the research progresses.

In addition, we strongly recommend that the final guidelines include the continuation of an NIH-funded registry that will list lines that are eligible for research using NIH funds. Without a registry, each institution will be required to review each stem cell line’s derivation process and informed consent compliance, regardless of how widely that line is used elsewhere for NIH-funded research. This will create a significant burden on institutions and researchers and slow the pace of their work.

FasterCures is dedicated to saving lives by saving time. Our mission is to identify ways to accelerate the discovery and development of new therapies for the treatment of deadly and debilitating diseases both in the United States and around the globe. The organization was founded in 2003 under the auspices of the Milken Institute to aggressively catalyze systemic change in cure research and to make the complex machinery that drives breakthroughs in medicine work for all of us faster and more efficiently. FasterCures is independent and non-partisan. We do not accept funding from companies that develop pharmaceuticals, biotechnology drugs, or therapeutic medical devices. Our primary mission is to improve the lives of patients by improving the research environment, research resources, and research organizations.

FasterCures participates in Mixed Virtual-Reality Health Expo Panel

FasterCures will be featured in TechSoup Global's NonProfit Commons Health Expo, a mixed reality event that marks the official launch of the Health Commons in Second Life. Health Commons seeks to bring together real-world health-related nonprofits, academics, educators, thought-leaders, foundations, and volunteer-supporters to showcase recent developments in healthcare.

Earlier this year, FasterCures joined Second Life, the Internet's largest, user-created 3D community and established its virtual home in NonProfit Commons which already houses more than 65 health and social-benefit organizations. Establishing a presence in Second Life allows FasterCures to reach a broad range of audiences and involve them in the quest for new treatments to deadly and debilitating diseases. This effort builds on an already engaged community of informed and connected health consumers and leverages the social networking's strengths to improve the biomedical research environment.

View FasterCures video highlighting its Second Life initiative.

FasterCures Report Applies Lessons of Social Entrepreneurship to Search for Cures

by Kristin Schneeman, Program Director, FasterCures
FasterCures has just released “From Social Entrepreneurship to ‘Cure Entrepreneurship,’” the latest in a series of reports aimed at injecting new, more strategic approaches into the conduct of medical research that hold the promise of accelerating results. The last report in the series, “Entrepreneurs for Cures,” laid out the critical need for innovative approaches to disease research and the important role nonprofit foundations can play in bringing creative thinking and new models to the enterprise.

Stemming from a novel gathering in November 2008 of individuals prominent in the fields of social entrepreneurship and of medical research, the new report poses the question, “Can we create an intersection between social entrepreneurship and medical research philanthropy – an ecosystem to support the work of cure entrepreneurs?”

The report features interviews with key opinion leaders, including:

• Lucy Bernholz, founder and president of Blueprint Research & Design, on the possibilities and limits of social entrepreneurship;


• Victoria Hale, founder and chair emeritus of the Institute for OneWorld Health, on the benefits of being part of a community of social entrepreneurs;


• Jason Hwang, director for health care at InnoSight Institute, on how to bring disruptive innovation to drug development;


• David Green, vice president at Ashoka, on innovative financing models for nonprofits;


• Brad Presner, metrics manager at Acumen Fund, on building a new portfolio data management system for use by all social entrepreneurs; and


• Elias Zerhouni, a senior fellow at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and immediate past director of the National Institutes of Health, on the imperative for engaging patients as decisionmakers in – not merely subject of – the medical research process.

The field of social entrepreneurship has flourished over the last decade, attracting scholarship, media attention, and financial resources and building social and professional networks – as is evidenced by the success of organizations like Ashoka and the Skoll Foundation and the creation of curricula at business schools from Stanford to Harvard.

Medical research, however, is one area of nonprofit social endeavor that has been largely excluded from the dialogue and the discipline (with the exception of global health, where the focus has been largely on challenges related to the delivery of treatments). Yet medical research philanthropy is seeking to address a market failure no less important than other social enterprises: the development of therapies that cure disease and alleviate suffering. Today’s “cure entrepreneurs” are trying to leverage their relatively small dollars to help move promising research through the pipeline from basic discovery to commercial development of products that can help the patients they care about.

Social entrepreneurs aim not merely to serve people in need but to transform the dysfunctional systems that cause social problems. This is true of cure entrepreneurs as well.

Greg Simon, President of FasterCures, says, “The term ‘nonprofit research organization’ cannot capture the emerging culture these new entrepreneurs have created. They work in small organizations that are fighting against the comfortable habits and familiar traditions that dominate medical research in order to create disruptive change in the interest of saving lives. There are breakpoints in the medical research system that can only be resolved by a strategic rethinking of the fundamental relationship between the patients, researchers, academia, government, and industry. The cure entrepreneurs can play a key role in bringing about such a revolution.”

About FasterCures FasterCures/The Center for Accelerating Medical Solutions is committed to saving lives by saving time in the research, discovery and development of new treatments for deadly and debilitating diseases. FasterCures, a center of the Milken Institute, is nonpartisan, nonprofit and independent of interest groups. For more information, visit http://www.fastercures.org/