Question: Why do so many small but suggestive glaucoma studies seem to go nowhere? Is it due to lack of funding?
Answer: There could always be more money, but the problem of glaucoma is complex. Ultimately we are talking about optic nerve regeneration, which would be incredibly complex, maybe more so than restoring function to an individual with a spinal cord injury. Some small studies are not successfully replicated. Or they may hold for animals, but not for humans. Such findings are often not published. Finally, some studies need to be validated with a large number of patients, and that takes a lot of money.
Question: Is saving umbilical cord blood appropriate at this time?
Answer: Umbilical cord stem cells are not as differentiated as adult stem cells, so it is easier to get them to develop into the specialized cells of the brain, heart, retina, or whatever is needed. However, at this point the cells would need to be saved at least 10 years, and that is a significant expense. The greatest amount of research may well be directed at other sources of stem cells, so this investment may not be productive.
Dr. Rick Wilson
February 5, 2006
Question: Are there any new surgical procedures that seem promising?
Answer: Yes, very. Surgery of Schlemm's canal is becoming a reality. I have done three different types of investigational procedures; two are now approved by the FDA. The future is bright, especially for those with less damage.
Question: If a miraculous treatment for glaucoma should be discovered tomorrow, how long would it take to become available?
Answer: If it were just discovered and was a medicine, I think it would take 5 to 8 years to get to market. If it were a surgical procedure, I would shorten the wait to 2 years or less, depending upon where the procedure was developed.
Question: When do you think stem-cell trials will begin, and what state do you think will lead the way?
Answer: California recently approved generous funding for stem cell research. Institutions like Johns Hopkins in Baltimore are afraid that California will attract the best scientists remaining in the U.S. Many of the best scientists left for England a couple of years ago. New Jersey has an initiative that is less well funded than California's.
