Diabetes research pioneer Kirtley dies at 96

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Diabetics who control their disease with pills instead of frequent insulin injections can thank Dr. William R. Kirtley, a pioneering diabetes researcher who died over the weekend on Hilton Head Island in South Carolina.

Kirtley had spent several months in failing heath before his death Sunday, said his daughter, Jane Kirtley. He was 96.

Kirtley was part of a team of researchers at Eli Lilly and Co. in Indianapolis who made groundbreaking discoveries in the decades after World War II that helped turn a disease that before the 20th century almost always caused a painful, suffering death in weeks or months into a a disorder that could be managed for decades without serious problems.

"My dad was proud of his work and what it meant for the lives of people with diabetes," Jane Kirtley said Wednesday.

Dr. Kirtley directed the Lilly Laboratory for Clinical Research and was part of a team that developed pills that helped Type 2 diabetics handle what little insulin their bodies produce better and help the pancreas produce more of the protein that helps break down sugars into energy.

The development was critical. Although researchers discovered injectable insulin could control diabetes several decades before, the treatments required frequent painful injections with needles that had to be sharpened by hand and sterilized in boiling water for at least 20 minutes. Now, some patients could take pills instead.

Kirtley's team also made several advancements with insulin, and he was honored by the American Diabetes Association with the Banting Medal in 1971, the honor named for the Canadian doctor who shared the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1923 for the discovery of insulin.

Kirtley was a native of Crawfordsville. He earned his medical degree from Northwestern University in 1941. He served as a doctor in the Pacific in World War II, once being transported between ships in a typhoon to save a man who needed an emergency appendectomy, his daughter said.

He went to work for Eli Lilly after his military service, retiring from the pharmaceutical giant in the late 1970s after his first wife died. He then took up golf and painting.

"He kept going really strong into his 90s," Jane Kirtley said.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).