George Cotsarelis and upenn new article today

[Thinning87]

And, in favor of science, someone might even argue that if our society wasn't so concerned with what Kim Kardashian wore yesterday and instead we as a society had different priorities, more money would go into helping these researchers.

But then again the only reason we want more money for research is to find a cure for baldness because we place so much importance on being attractive, which is an indirect byproduct of having priorities similar to the one I mentioned in the previous paragraph

[Dan26]

The lack of results only serves to underscore the difficulty of this problem, not a lack of effort..

How do you know this? It's like your saying we should just sit back and accept things the way they are. Perhaps things could be approached/ran more efficiently/effectively...

[lurker77]

I wouldnt even donate to cancer research. Billions of dollars and uncountable man hours have gone into it with nothing to show for it. Like I said before, it almost seems as if the researchers and taking the funds to sustain themselves with a career.

Whose billions? Your billions? I'm willing to bet that you (as well as I, as well as the bulk of these forum members, as well as the vast majority of balding men overall) haven't contributed one red cent to their research. Where do you get off thinking that they "owe" you an instant cure?

You speak as if you expect these researchers should have separate careers as accountants and produce a viable result in their spare time with their own money and equipment.

The lack of results only serves to underscore the difficulty of this problem, not a lack of effort. You should be thankful for every single perceived "failure" reported on, as it means they're learning more and more about the AGA mechanisms and ultimately brings us all closer to a solution.

5 years, 10 years, 100 years, it doesn't matter one bit as far as science is concerned. It'll get done when it gets done, IF it gets done, and you should be grateful anything is getting done at all.

Every day it's a bunch of stupid arguments over a trivial vanity problem which humanity has dealt with since the beginning of time. What makes you or anyone else here special, other than the fact that we happen to live in an age where scientific progress is being made exponentially faster than any other time in history and that we happen to belong in a subset of people who cares too much about their hair?

Not fast enough for you? Go get yourself a bioengineering degree and freely volunteer to help at one of these labs. Otherwise quit whining that things aren't going your way.

[walrus]

Unacceptable to all of us.

However, you comparing hair loss to setting foot on mars is ridiculous. What is more of a priority? Seriously? And there is no sense of false entitlement when funds have been put towards the hair loss cure and when scam artists have SCREWED us. We deserve better.

Overall, and objectively? Investment in space is clearly a higher priority. Though of course, not for us personally.

My point was no one has the right to suggest that the rate of scientific advancement is 'unacceptable', and this is not unique to hair loss or indeed biology.

[walrus]

I wouldnt even donate to cancer research. Billions of dollars and uncountable man hours have gone into it with nothing to show for it. Like I said before, it almost seems as if the researchers and taking the funds to sustain themselves with a career.

There is actually a lot to show for it if you look in the right place --- the primary literature. Of course funding sustains their career, how else would they be able to do the work? Though contrary to what you are suggesting, this does not encourage laziness. A good publishing record (I.e. having something to show for it) means they are more likely to be awarded funding in the future --- 'publish or perish'.

[hellouser]

Unacceptable to who? Is it unacceptable that man has yet to set foot on Mars? That we don't fully understand dark matter/energy? That there is no cure of dementia? These are all major scientific goals. We all want to see a cure here, but we are not OWED it. A false sense of entitlement and belittling genuine steps along the way achieves nothing.

Unacceptable to all of us.

However, you comparing hair loss to setting foot on mars is ridiculous. What is more of a priority? Seriously? And there is no sense of false entitlement when funds have been put towards the hair loss cure and when scam artists have SCREWED us. We deserve better.

[hellouser]

I agree that there is a lack of empathy. At the end of the day donating money to a cancer charity (for research) will always be seen as a more noble thing than giving to a hypothetical hair loss charity.

I wouldnt even donate to cancer research. Billions of dollars and uncountable man hours have gone into it with nothing to show for it. Like I said before, it almost seems as if the researchers and taking the funds to sustain themselves with a career.

[walrus]

to whom. I agree with your sentiment though. That said, I think AA research suffers from an almost unique lack of empathy, funding and sense of urgency with regards to bringing things to market. I don't think we should blame researchers and doctors who are genuinely trying though - blame the regulatory process, blame the FDA, blame lack of funding and the fact that bald people are not considered to be suffering a serious deformity but are the laughing stocks of modern aesthetics.

I agree that there is a lack of empathy. At the end of the day donating money to a cancer charity (for research) will always be seen as a more noble thing than giving to a hypothetical hair loss charity.

[HairBane]

Unacceptable to who? Is it unacceptable that man has yet to set foot on Mars? That we don't fully understand dark matter/energy? That there is no cure of dementia? These are all major scientific goals. We all want to see a cure here, but we are not OWED it. A false sense of entitlement and belittling genuine steps along the way achieves nothing.

to whom. I agree with your sentiment though. That said, I think AA research suffers from an almost unique lack of empathy, funding and sense of urgency with regards to bringing things to market. I don't think we should blame researchers and doctors who are genuinely trying though - blame the regulatory process, blame the FDA, blame lack of funding and the fact that bald people are not considered to be suffering a serious deformity but are the laughing stocks of modern aesthetics.

[walrus]

There are limits as to how long it should take... decades is unacceptable.

Unacceptable to who? Is it unacceptable that man has yet to set foot on Mars? That we don't fully understand dark matter/energy? That there is no cure of dementia? These are all major scientific goals. We all want to see a cure here, but we are not OWED it. A false sense of entitlement and belittling genuine steps along the way achieves nothing.

[hellouser]

Yeah, I don't get the pessimistic posting either. It seems that the only research that would mean anything would be the absolute final step: a total cure. But why do you demand the endpoint but reject every single step that would be required to get to that point?

It's like someone telling another person "I want you to build a bridge over this river" and then after the person starts building it, putting in all of the supporting structures that are necessary for a bridge to function, the requester ask to see the progress, the person shows it to them, and they say "It''s not totally completed at this very second? Then I don't care about any of the progress you made and all of your efforts are worthless."

There's no reason to think there will ever be a cure, and no genuinely respectable scientist ever told anyone there would be. Therefore, there's no reason to be disappointed when research comes out that is something less than a total cure. Progress is being made, but it's still unclear if anything will ever lead to that ultimate endpoint. I for one am appreciative of all the real scientists that are working on finding a solution.

There are limits as to how long it should take... decades is unacceptable.

[beetee]

Yeah, I don't get the pessimistic posting either. It seems that the only research that would mean anything would be the absolute final step: a total cure. But why do you demand the endpoint but reject every single step that would be required to get to that point?

It's like someone telling another person "I want you to build a bridge over this river" and then after the person starts building it, putting in all of the supporting structures that are necessary for a bridge to function, the requester ask to see the progress, the person shows it to them, and they say "It''s not totally completed at this very second? Then I don't care about any of the progress you made and all of your efforts are worthless."

There's no reason to think there will ever be a cure, and no genuinely respectable scientist ever told anyone there would be. Therefore, there's no reason to be disappointed when research comes out that is something less than a total cure. Progress is being made, but it's still unclear if anything will ever lead to that ultimate endpoint. I for one am appreciative of all the real scientists that are working on finding a solution.

[walrus]

Pessimistic posters should note that science does not owe anyone a favour. It will take as long as it takes. You should be thankful that research is actually being done at all in this field.

[beetee]

While Follica and UPenn are independent entities, they are not totally separate by any means. Dr. Cotsarelis is the Chair of Dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania's Perleman School of Medicine (all of the hair related work done there is done by Dr. Cotsarelis and his group), and Dr. Cotsarelis is also one of the founders of Follica, a company that was created largely to bring products to market based on the findings that develop out of his work at Penn. Penn has partial financial ownership for anything that comes out of Cotsarelis's lab at Penn.

For an example, from the news release that accompanied the FgF9-Follica work in June of this year: "Technology exclusively licensed by Follica Inc. from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania has been used to demonstrate a new approach to regenerate hair follicles in adult mammals which could be used therapeutically in humans."

Follica had to license it from Penn, as Penn in part "owned" the results of the research, but the fact that it was exclusively licensed to Follica is because of Dr. Cotsarelis.

[Pentarou]

**** me, we're really 20+ years from a viable post-finasteride, post-minox treatment, let alone anything approaching a 'cure'. **** me. No wonder this subforum is tumbleweed-strewn since Nigam was run out of town.