 |
Texts for Laypersons |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Prof.Sandro Rusconi; |
Biochimie, Univ. Fribourg, Pérolles; 1700
Fribourg; CH; |
|
Title: |
Direction of the NRP37 'Somatische Gentherapie'; tasks and budgets. |
|
Co-applicants: |
|
Collaborators: |
D Pedrioli, S B Verca |
|
|
ABSTRACT | PUBLICATION | DIVULGATION TEXT | BACK TO OUTLINE |
ABSTRACT FOR LAYPERSONS 1997:
In my grant proposal for the directorship I wrote that, while enjoying an outstanding record of reliability and quality, the Swiss economical and academic realities have been a meager background to ensure massive initial impulse on gene therapy, this being due to several structural and tradition-related problems. One of the major issues is certainly the weak image that gene technology is currently bearing in our country. This scepticism has crystallised in several forms, the last chronological one being the 'Genschutzinitiative' which foresees a constitutional article for the ban of transgenic animals use and other features that are essential in gene technology. The current acceptance enjoyed by this 'initiative' demonstrates that the Swiss public opinion has a very meager image of gene technology-based progress. This constitutional referendum will be submitted to popular vote by June 1998 and many efforts to avoid its acceptance have been concerted.
However, and with a generous touch of ambivalence revealed by recent polls, somatic gene therapy as a concept is extremely positively regarded from the Swiss public opinion, and as such may represent an ideal stronghold by which the entire image of gene technology could be vigorously brushed up. Furthermore, many scientists involved in fundamental research have seen in somatic gene therapy a true challenge in which they can measure their muscles and they can entertain long-sought interactions with the clinical world. I dare to say, something similar to the pioneer times of space-research, where the immediate benefits seemed so far away and yet attracted so many experimental efforts, resulting in numerous spin-off that gave new impulse and revolutionary applications in unsuspected technological areas. Perhaps due to those combined effects, the NFP37 advertisement (1995) attracted almost 60 project sketches. About twenty were financed for the first phase (see introduction and history)
Organisation of the NRP37.
The NF37 program has been broadly divided into two phases: Phase A, three years in which the granted projects shall be followed and evaluated; Phase B in which the 'most suitable' projects may be continued and perhaps new projects shall be implemented ( I called the first phase 'Phase A' to semantically distinguish it from the term 'Phase I' which in the clinical jargon is reserved for clinical trials). From the documents in my hand and from the informal discussions, it is not yet clear which form the official call for proposals for the second phase will take. Two grants (Aebischer and Trono. 44718 and 46196) have been financed for the full period of 60 months.
Several of the financed Phase A projects have intrinsically little chance to result into a clinically applicable procedure. I was faintly aware of that situation already at the beginning of my charge, but after visiting several of the involved teams and after reading several thousands of pages on the various themes, I can affirm this with much more conviction. This fact must be constantly beared in mind when trying to evaluate the performance of the teams financed under Phase A and before giving the definitive shape to the strategy for Phase B.
ABSTRACT FOR LAYPERSONS
1998:
text (font Courier, corps 3)
ABSTRACT FOR LAYPERSONS
1999:
text (font Courier, corps 3)
ABSTRACT FOR LAYPERSONS
2000:
text (font Courier, corps 3)
ABSTRACT FOR LAYPERSONS
2001:
text (font Courier, corps 3)
Back to Informations for the
layperson
|
|
|
|
|
|
