That's a very urgent need. Right now the clinical and the basic research are, and always have been, traditionally, rather separate. For example, we have animal models of Alzheimer's disease. They're not perfect models of Alzheimer's disease, but they do replicate some of the conditions. They're actually mice that have had injected into them the human gene for familial Alzheimer's disease, and they end up with a sort of a mouse Alzheimer's disease. Before we can try any drug clinically, it has to be shown to work on the animal model. So this, in a sense, addresses what you're saying. What has happened is they've produced, on the basis of good solid scientific reasoning, a drug that ought to work, for example, in stopping the production of this suspect protein. It worked on the animals fine, and they took it to the humans and it didn't work. This has happened about four or five times with very exciting prospects. As soon as they went from the animal to the human, they failed.
Here we have a reason for having the basic scientists and the clinical people work together. I'm a basic researcher, although I understand the clinical side of it as well, and it's hard to see why it worked on the animals and it didn't work on the humans. We have some good ideas now, but they're not ideas that have been generated very much as a consequence of collaboration between clinical and basic. We do actually need to foster that. I don't know exactly in what form it can be promoted, but the idea that we must get them together should be very much promoted. In fact it would be nice if there were certain initiatives that would be allowed only if basic and clinical researchers worked together. We don't have that.