Unbounded by traditional medical research models, the Myelin Repair Foundation (MRF) established the potential of myelin repair as an alternative to current immunosuppressant therapies for multiple sclerosis. The MRF blog shares information about our approach, our findings and our best practices. Join the discussion and help break down the barriers that are slowing medical research for all diseases.
Six weeks ago at our annual research meeting held in Palo Alto, we celebrated five years of progress with nearly 60 scientists including our principal investigators, their lab staff members, members of our Scientific Advisory Board and Drug Discovery Advisory Group and a number of guests including several MS patients who shared their stories with all assembled. During the two-day meeting I chatted with many of the participants and I asked the same question: “How did we do?”
When we launched the MRF five years ago, there was at least some level of skepticism about the likelihood that we would achieve our goals. In particular, would we be able to form a new kind of scientific collaboration that genuinely accelerated basic science and deliver important scientific findings about myelin repair that were clinically relevant for MS patients.
I was particularly impressed and humbled by comments we received from Scientific Advisory Board member Dr. Henry McFarland. Dr. McFarland is a highly regarded scientist in the field of MS research. In fact, he has spent his entire 40+ year career studying the causes of MS and a wide range of immunosuppressant therapeutic strategies. In 1998, he was awarded the American Academy of Neurology and the NMSS Dystal Prize for outstanding research in multiple sclerosis. Though Henry’s initial skepticism made it difficult to persuade him to join our SAB in 2004, since he joined in 2005 he has been an incredibly valuable and active participant. Fortunately for the MRF, despite his retirement this past summer from the NIH, he will remain on our SAB.
At this past annual meeting, he spoke thoughtfully about what the MRF has achieved. He told me the progress and clinically relevant productivity of the MRF were “orders of magnitude better than his original expectations”. Because his comments were so emphatic I asked him to share them with me via email.
Henry McFarland on the MRF:
“I believe the most striking accomplishment has been the success of the model. The thought that one could get several excellent basic scientists to work in a united effort with a clinical target in mind is really impressive. This has been difficult to accomplish in many institutions including NINDS. I believe the incentive for this success has been more than money; it has been the development of a fundamental interest in solving a problem in a disease, in this case MS.
“Not only has the group (MRF) worked together but there are now products of this effort. Very impressive. I had doubts that the MRF would ever be this successful…
“… I believe that the (scientific) progress the group has made is actually greater than what I would have thought possible. Clearly the rate of progress should be greater from this point especially if the goals are well focused.”
Henry then went on to describe some of the most promising scientific discoveries that have come out of our labs that he believes “have the potential for evolving into a therapeutic approach.” He also praised the MRF investment “in (new) animals that can be used to test these potential therapies”. All of the progress Henry was referring to has been cataloged in a Summary of Scientific Findings available on our web site.
Thank you Dr. McFarland.
I would like to know what doubts or thoughts Dr. McFarland had and why. Please finish the following sentence: “I had doubts that MRF would ever be successful…..” Please inform us of his comments in their entirety.
Thank you.