09/02/2026
Rare disease advocacy needs a new model.
Iâm going to say something that may make some people uncomfortable:
Itâs time to stop protecting organizations simply because they have been around for a long time.
The rare disease movement was built by pioneers who fought to make rare diseases visible, create incentives for drug development, establish patient registries, change FDA policy, and give families a voice.
We owe that generation an enormous debt.
But we cannot build the future using the architecture of the past.
The rare disease landscape has fundamentally changed.
Today we have patient-driven research, massive datasets, advanced biotechnology, gene and RNA therapies, AI, precision medicine, domestic biomanufacturing, new regulatory pathways, and an increasingly sophisticated understanding of how national security, supply chains, manufacturing and healthcare intersect.
Yet too much of rare disease advocacy is still organized around the same institutional structures, funding models and policy assumptions we developed decades ago.
That isnât innovation. Thatâs institutional preservation.
The next generation of rare disease advocacy needs to be entrepreneurial, patient-driven, scientifically rigorous and unapologetically focused on outcomes.
We need organizations that can:
â Build the research infrastructure themselves.
â Turn patient data into usable scientific assets.
â Connect patients directly with researchers and developers.
â Create new economic incentives for rare-disease therapeutics.
â Bring manufacturing back into the rare-disease conversation.
â Use national security and industrial-base policy when appropriate.
â Challenge regulatory barriers rather than simply working around them.
â Build partnerships across government, industry, academia and patients.
â Measure success by therapies developed and lives changedânot the number of meetings held.
And sometimes that means scrapping the model and building something new.
Not because the people who built the old system failed.
Because they succeededâand the world moved on.
The next generation shouldnât spend its energy defending yesterdayâs institutions.
We should be building the institutions our children will need tomorrow.
Iâve spent more than a decade watching rare disease from the patient, research, policy and biotechnology sides.
I believe we are at an inflection point.
Rare disease doesnât need another organization that simply asks for a seat at the table.
It needs organizations willing to build a new table.
The next era of rare disease advocacy should not be about preserving the movement.
It should be about reinventing it.