Part of the problem is a controversial decision made by the National Institutes of Health last year to close its National Center for Research Resources, which provided most of the funding for comparative medicine in the latter half of the 20th century.
Important research continues, however. Sherril Green, chair of Stanford’s Department of Comparative Medicine, pointed to her colleague, Joseph Garner, who has identified biomarkers to predict, and dietary interventions to prevent, compulsive hair-pulling in mice. Likewise, Tamas Horvath, chair of Yale’s comparative medicine program, cited his colleague, Jorge Galan, who studies the way Salmonella bacteria interact with host cells in mice to cause disease.
Liggitt, Green, Horvath, all vets, agreed with Cardiff that comparative medicine passed through its own dark ages in the last couple of decades—with many departments like theirs focusing on care for and maintenance of test animals rather than research—but all three were more optimistic about a renaissance.
There’s still a cultural divide between human and animal doctors, but zoonotic diseases, drug development, and food-safety concerns have pushed both sides toward greater collaboration. That will likely mean a shift from basic to translational research, and more partnerships between universities and the private sector. Throw in the old and ongoing debate about the ethics of animal research, and there’s a lot to cover.
Liggitt, Green, and Horvath are hopeful that Zoobiquity will help the general public become a bit more interested in comparative medicine. Maybe it’ll do the same for journalists once the book tour is over.
Dear Curtis,
As the authors of Zoobiquity, we’re grateful you pointed out that our book contains extensive reporting, not only on comparative medicine and its history but also on evolutionary medicine and the One Health movement. In fact, in addition to interviewing many key One Health leaders, participating in several One Health gatherings, and serving on national committees advancing both One Health and evolutionary medicine, we hosted a conference in 2011 that brought together physicians and medical students from UCLA with veterinarians, vet students, and One Health researchers from UC Davis.
Far from claiming that we’ve invented a new branch of medicine, our book reports on both new and longstanding efforts to keep these ideas alive and to advance them.
The main goal of our project is to bring these important ideas to a larger audience, one that includes not only the general public but also the clinical practitioner at the human patient’s bedside. While scientists, veterinarians, and physicians who work in the field of comparative medicine recognize its potential and long history, most practicing physicians are unaware of the kinds of questions that could be asked and answered using this approach.
In addition, we’ve found that patients by and large have never heard of this field, and are responding quite positively to the notion that their conditions are shared with other animals. And we felt the title Zoobiquity made the book more accessible than something like “Clinical Applications of Comparative Medicine.”
As for how our book is portrayed in the media, well, as you know that’s up to each individual news organization. We feel our book speaks for itself.
Sincerely yours,
Barbara Natterson-Horowitz, M.D., and Kathryn Bowers
#1 Posted by Kathryn Bowers and Barbara Natterson-Horowitz, MD, CJR on Sat 16 Jun 2012 at 11:20 AM