Well, sort of. For the past few days, I've been in rainy Vancouver, where TB researchers from all over the world have gathered for a Keystone meeting on the topic. As we reported in our free TB special this month, TB kills 4,400 people every day and together with HIV, is creating a serious crisis in Africa, Asia and eastern Europe.

Not that you would know it from the WHO's press release on the occasion of World TB Day (today, although the release came out Thursday). The WHO takes a self-congratulatory tone, announcing that TB has leveled off for the first time since 1993. It's not until the third para that you find out in actual numbers, TB continued to rise in 2005, just more slowly than it had in 2004. That's worth trumpeting?

TB scientists complain that one of their biggest obstacles is the abysmal funding, about a tenth of the money available for research on HIV/AIDS. It seems to me that the WHO's positive spin is going to make donors even less likely to chip in. I don't doubt that the situation could be worse, but when a disease kills nearly 2 million people a year, that's no time for pats on the back.

A few scientists at the meeting have said that they find the WHO's stance unhelpful and demoralizing. Fortunately, it dosn't seem to be affecting their research too much. This is my first TB keystone meeting, but people here have been marveling at how well attended it is this year.

Even better, many of the attendees are young grad students and postdocs. After decades of no drugs, no vaccines and absolutely no money, TB is making a comeback. You could almost say that attention from celebrities like Angelina Jolie and Bono has made TB sort of... sexy.

As offensive as that might sound, anything that brings this horrible killer more attention is all right with me. I'm heading back now to hear more about clinical trials for new TB vaccines, the first good candidates to be tested in almost a 100 years.

Posted by Apoorva Mandavilli at 07:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Conflict of Interest is a touchy matter. Just crack open the pages of Nature Medicine and you’ll see that scientists who publish topnotch research regularly declare financial conflicts. It’s a fact that drug companies seek out the best physician-scientists—and so do agencies in need independent scientific advice, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

So what to think of the new FDA proposal limiting conflict of interest on its advisory panels? The proposal would prevent researchers from serving on panels if they receive more than $50,000 from a company or competitor whose product is being discussed. Those who receive less than that amount can participate in the committee but cannot vote.

The agency is in a tough position: it’s been slammed repeatedly over lax conflict of interest rules. Yet agency officials are right when they say that the best advisors may often have financial conflicts.

The Institute of Medicine recognized this dilemma in its recommendations for FDA reform last fall. They recommended capping the percentage of individuals with a ‘significant’ financial conflict of interest at 60 percent.

The proposed guidelines seem to follow the spirit, if not the letter, of this recommendation. It’s possible the guidelines go too far--considering that it seems that no one with any conflict whatsoever can vote—or that the guidelines will lose their teeth after the 60 day comment period. For a breakdown of the pros and cons, see Derek Lowe’s blog “In the pipeline.”

Either way, it’s good to see the FDA is responding to legitimate criticism of its current system, as well as threats from Congress to impose more draconian conflict of interest rules through legislation.

Posted by Charlotte Schubert at 09:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Let's hear it for Elias Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health. He came out strongly in support of stem cell research at a Senate hearing this Monday, bucking the official line of the Bush administration.

"It is in the best interests of our scientists, our science, our country," he said, "that the nation finds a way to allow the science to go full speed on both adult and embryonic stem cell research." Zerhouni also denounced the notion that adult stem cells hold just as much promise as embryonic stem cells.

Whether the NIH director is being flogged right now in a back room at the White House is unclear. But administration officials were quick to try and repair the damage. “There was only one moral line the President said that he would not cross," said a White House spokesperson, "and that is that federal taxpayer dollars should not be used in the destruction of embryos.”

A few years ago, when stem cells seemed the biggest thing on the President’s agenda, Zerhouni’s statement might have caused a massive uproar. But now it seems that it’s getting lost in all the other dramas going on, from the Scooter Libby trial to the Supreme Court case on “Bong hits 4 Jesus.” Maybe, just maybe, there’s change—or at least rebellion—brewing on the stem cell front. I don’t know about you, but I’m looking forward to what happens next.

Posted by Charlotte Schubert at 04:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)