Tweet
That's so far the only legit "news":
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As one of the organizers of WCHR2013 may I contribute the discussion.
My duties meant I didn’t get to as many of the sessions as I would have liked but I have a fair idea of what is going on so just a few thoughts in response to some of the points that have been raised in previous posts.
1. Around 600 people attended the meeting but not all were researchers (e.g. dermatologists, trichologists, alopecians who are interested in the field but not actively involved in research).
Hair research is a diverse field and not all those involved are working on AGA. These include those working on other clinical problems, such as scarring alopecia and alopecia areata, developmental biologists who use the hair follicle as a model, and cosmetic scientists to name some.
2. Despite the popular concept, there is not a lot of money in hair research and I doubt any of the academics involved have got rich from doing it. Research is expensive and the money has to come from somewhere. Medical grant-giving bodies are very unlikely to fund research into male AGA so it comes either from piggy-backing on other projects or from commercial sources. Industry is only likely to provide funding if it sees a return on investment – this does happen but it’s not a very reliable source and, like everyone else, scientists have to make a living.
3. Current medical treatments for male AGA probably act mainly on the early changes in hair cycling and, in my opinion, there is little or no evidence that we can reverse follicular miniaturization. To achieve this is a tall order as it essentially means reversing an ageing process, something not yet achieved in other biomedical fields. This does not mean it cannot be done but I do not see it as being imminent (or even within the oft-quoted 5 years). The Holy Grail is to induce new follicle formation e.g. using various modifications around cell culture techniques. This has also proved very hard to crack in humans (and I have the scars on my arms to prove it) but progress is being made. However, it will be one thing to induce a hair follicle or two, quite another to induce the thousands that will be needed on a bald scalp all arranged in a cosmetically acceptable pattern.
4. We need to be realistic. In my view progress is more likely to be by evolution than revolution. Prevention rather than cure (although I know this will not be much comfort to posters on this site). Combination treatments (highlighted at the meeting) and new medical treatments that overcome some of the shortcomings of what is currently available offer some hope.
5. Side effects are a major issue. There is no treatment for anything that is devoid of side effects but the nature of hair disease means that risk has to be very low. This limits what we can do and those indulging in such treatments must recognize this.
6. Recognise that there are ethical scientists of the highest calibre trying to make progress. But it is a small community.
7. The field is plagued by false claims. It can be hard to know what to believe but, even if we have been pretty useless at coming up with better treatments, we can at least try to be objective about what is achievable.
8. A highlight of WCHR2013 was the contribution from people with alopecia areata. They recognize it is not easy. Like them you need to be actively involved, not just complaining about our perceived shortcomings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, that's everything for the coming years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As one of the organizers of WCHR2013 may I contribute the discussion.
My duties meant I didn’t get to as many of the sessions as I would have liked but I have a fair idea of what is going on so just a few thoughts in response to some of the points that have been raised in previous posts.
1. Around 600 people attended the meeting but not all were researchers (e.g. dermatologists, trichologists, alopecians who are interested in the field but not actively involved in research).
Hair research is a diverse field and not all those involved are working on AGA. These include those working on other clinical problems, such as scarring alopecia and alopecia areata, developmental biologists who use the hair follicle as a model, and cosmetic scientists to name some.
2. Despite the popular concept, there is not a lot of money in hair research and I doubt any of the academics involved have got rich from doing it. Research is expensive and the money has to come from somewhere. Medical grant-giving bodies are very unlikely to fund research into male AGA so it comes either from piggy-backing on other projects or from commercial sources. Industry is only likely to provide funding if it sees a return on investment – this does happen but it’s not a very reliable source and, like everyone else, scientists have to make a living.
3. Current medical treatments for male AGA probably act mainly on the early changes in hair cycling and, in my opinion, there is little or no evidence that we can reverse follicular miniaturization. To achieve this is a tall order as it essentially means reversing an ageing process, something not yet achieved in other biomedical fields. This does not mean it cannot be done but I do not see it as being imminent (or even within the oft-quoted 5 years). The Holy Grail is to induce new follicle formation e.g. using various modifications around cell culture techniques. This has also proved very hard to crack in humans (and I have the scars on my arms to prove it) but progress is being made. However, it will be one thing to induce a hair follicle or two, quite another to induce the thousands that will be needed on a bald scalp all arranged in a cosmetically acceptable pattern.
4. We need to be realistic. In my view progress is more likely to be by evolution than revolution. Prevention rather than cure (although I know this will not be much comfort to posters on this site). Combination treatments (highlighted at the meeting) and new medical treatments that overcome some of the shortcomings of what is currently available offer some hope.
5. Side effects are a major issue. There is no treatment for anything that is devoid of side effects but the nature of hair disease means that risk has to be very low. This limits what we can do and those indulging in such treatments must recognize this.
6. Recognise that there are ethical scientists of the highest calibre trying to make progress. But it is a small community.
7. The field is plagued by false claims. It can be hard to know what to believe but, even if we have been pretty useless at coming up with better treatments, we can at least try to be objective about what is achievable.
8. A highlight of WCHR2013 was the contribution from people with alopecia areata. They recognize it is not easy. Like them you need to be actively involved, not just complaining about our perceived shortcomings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, that's everything for the coming years.
Is where the next step is going to be.
Histogen -> minoxidil
Aderans -> propecia without sides.
Comment