joe carp asks:
does anyone have any information concerning how the proposed health
initiative will handle federally funded research and development with
regard to Diabetes and complications?
the june third issue of _Science_ presents mixed news. budgets are not being set
to allow for inflation or growth or replacement of laboratory facilities. the
title of the article says it all:
Memo Backs Basic Research With Words, Not Cash.
here is a quote from the director of NIH:
"We’re in a time of unprecedented opportunities for biomedical
research—some of which are spelled out in the memo—but there’s no
point having a vision of the future if you don’t have any more money to
spend."
Harold Varmus
the health care proposals before congress do not attempt to address this paucity
of funding for basic research. yes there are lovely words but no cash.
basic research is hard to sell politically because it does not seem useful
until it is applied.
sadly the political climate has become dominated by disease of the month club
and one-issue lobbying. this divided approach to securing funds for research
means that investigators have to figure out which disease group is most likely
to possess the resources to fund a project. in the four decades in which i
have been reading _Science_ i have noticed a splintering of research into feudal
types of enclaves. this grouping of data by disease obscures the sharing
of data among researchers.
diabetes research depends upon unrelated basic research in biomaterials, in
drug delivery and development, work on combinatorial chemistry and so forth.
it is very very dangerous to assume that funds allocated directly for a diabetes
cure will be the most efficient pathway to achieve results. basic research
by its nature is almost indescribable.
research used to be investigator-driven, with top scientists being able to
secure funding for their labs with the freedom to devise new tools and to ask
unexpected questions part way through a project. forcing investigators
to align their laboratories with politically mandated issues lessens the oppor-
tunities for serendipitous discoveries. the best work is usually the unintended,
the accidental, the marginal or off-goal shot. here i will mention an example
from my family. edward’s father, now a professor emeritus of quantum chemistry,
was stirring acetone absent-mindedly in the lab with his toothbrush handle
almost four decades ago. the handle oozed into a lovely mess. dr. reid was
concerned that his wife would be upset as he had ruined several toothbrushes
that way recently. he decided to use the mangled handle as a membrane for
reverse osmosis. his lab observation resulted in the very first practical
membrane for desalinisation by reverse osmosis. his off-hand play yielded
major new ways to provide water for irrigation and for power-plant cooling.
i am very much opposed to the type of activism which chooses particular
outcomes or diseases to fund. this approach orphans those who suffer from rare
diseases. it also isolates information into disease categories rather than
linking the information by functional fields or by metabolic pathways. it
places too much temporal pressures upon investigators. there must be room
for discoveries which are unanticipated by grants writers.
melynda claire reid
melynda reid who wears hats but does not type caps
eel: mely…@titipu.resun.com or nosc.mil!titipu.resun.com!melynda
snail: p o box 378 greensboro, florida 32330
In article <01010064.2je…@yumyum.resun.com> mely…@titipu.resun.com (Melynda Reid) writes:
…………………
>research used to be investigator-driven, with top scientists being able to
>secure funding for their labs with the freedom to devise new tools and to ask
>unexpected questions part way through a project.
Alas, this has largely vanished since WWII. In the US, there was a vigorous
research atmosphere with no government participation. At this time, I believe
that the amount of good research is less than what it would have been if the
government had never gotten into it. Not just in science, there used to be
competition for top people, and the competition then included research
facilities. Now, if a university professor asks for a graduate assistant,
this $10,000 research request ends up as a grant proposal, which in many
fields is unlikely to be funded, taking $10,000 to produce and process,
and if it is granted, being a $40,000 grant.
The problem is that the government is now so heavily involved that the
proposed shift from supporting basic research to "technology transfer"
can cause major problems in keeping good scholars in the universities.
Purdue University, a fairly good state university, and first or second
class in many fields, is now receiving $183 million/year from the federal
government. This is about double the total tuition.
Also, the government has made it much harder for private funding of
research. I suspect that $10/year from each type II diabetic would
exceed the current research funding in that area.
forcing investigators
>to align their laboratories with politically mandated issues lessens the oppor-
>tunities for serendipitous discoveries. the best work is usually the unintended,
>the accidental, the marginal or off-goal shot. here i will mention an example
>from my family. edward’s father, now a professor emeritus of quantum chemistry,
>was stirring acetone absent-mindedly in the lab with his toothbrush handle
>almost four decades ago. the handle oozed into a lovely mess. dr. reid was
>concerned that his wife would be upset as he had ruined several toothbrushes
>that way recently. he decided to use the mangled handle as a membrane for
>reverse osmosis. his lab observation resulted in the very first practical
>membrane for desalinisation by reverse osmosis. his off-hand play yielded
>major new ways to provide water for irrigation and for power-plant cooling.
You are so right. I am a researcher myself in mathematics and statistics.
I do not believe that it is possible for me to submit an honest research
proposal, not that I am dishonest. But in the nine months from writing
the proposal to the grant, I may have already solved the problem, or I
might have found that it involves far more difficulty than imagined, or
I might have found something else which looks more promising.
>i am very much opposed to the type of activism which chooses particular
>outcomes or diseases to fund. this approach orphans those who suffer from rare
>diseases. it also isolates information into disease categories rather than
>linking the information by functional fields or by metabolic pathways. it
>places too much temporal pressures upon investigators. there must be room
>for discoveries which are unanticipated by grants writers.
> melynda claire reid
–
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hru…@stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
In article <CrnqAu….@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, hru…@b.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
=Also, the government has made it much harder for private funding of
=research. I suspect that $10/year from each type II diabetic would
That would work out to about $50,000,000/year.
—————————————————————————
I try very hard to say exactly what I mean. I’d appreciate it if you’d
bear that in mind and not try to "interpret" my posts to fit your own
preconceived notions if I’m posting in a serious thread. Remember: If you
throw a strawman into a heated debate, flames are likely to be the result.