I am in finance, a lot of expertise & phd education, but rather advise than become involved because some people here irritate me like hell. My dissertation was on R&D financing so I know a thing or two, but no one listens.
While I am sure most of you know the financial obstacle toward the cure, let me nevertheless summarize what I know. Why do bio-techs have hard time to find investors? This is due to the inherit risk in their projects which succeed less than 10% of the time in most cases and the inherent asymetric information. FDI red tape also contribute to the low returns on these projects (more on this below). For biotechs to attract funding they need to have a VERY STRONG convincing case that their product will work. Of course, financing is easier if they happen to be more diversified, having 10+ products in the pipeline.
What does that mean? If Dr Smith in his lab has come across something that might work on male pattern baldness (say PGD2) he might want to go to investors and raise A LOT of money to run the trial ASAP and get it through FDA. BUT, but, investors hear similar claims all the time (since everyone has incentive to inflate their statements) and will unlikely to fund his project at this stage (not in a way that is acceptable to Dr Smith, they probably will want a very generous contract to them). They need some proof first. Well, with little money on his hand and a small grant (because hairloss does not generate very large grants) he will have to start with a small trial and so on, taking this at a pace that is 10 times slower than what could have been the case. This is the asymetric information problem. This delays research funding a lot. That is why the government has come up with generous grants for cancer and other life threatning conditions to address this issue. They won't do it for hair loss.
It if important to know that ONCE a lab can PROVE that Pastarami Juice (as an example) can grow hair the lab will EASILY get Funding. Everyone wants to throw themselves on sure investment. So folks, if you are waiting to have a sure thing that works before you put your money, no need to, once it is proven it is financed.
So the Key, if you want to make a difference, is to take risks that investors are NOT willling to take. To accept that your donation of 1000 can go to lab X but might not lead to a cure.
- - - Updated - - -
The way to minimize losses it through the knowledge power (which most investors don't have) and through direct communications with the researchers. For example once you have a fund that has 5 million in it, Dr Jahoda will be willing to meet with a representative and explain his plan. He might be willling to sign an agreement with regular updates. You might introduce a clause in the agreement that protects the money in case the research stages are not being executed as stated. After all it is free money that you are giving and you can have power...
I don't see why we can t have 5 million dollar within 6 months if we wanted to. Get that honest and well-spoken dude from BTT (the guy you guys want to send to the conference...funny that once he responded saying OK I will go no one respnded to him anymore)...
- - - Updated - - -
Of course my summary was pretty simplistic -- there are other issues. For example, a patent has a lifetime of 10 years or so but getting something through trials and FDA takes sometimes near 6-7 years, which leaves you very little time to enjoy the profit. That is why red-tape is a huge issue. But if the money is coming for free (presumably we are in it to help not for the yield) then that would mitigate this natural reluctance to start a trial.