Skip to main content

View Diary: CPAC 2013: Wayne LaPierre and Bachmann want to spend your money (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ms. Bachmann, just in case you really are (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Marti, SuWho, RichM, Miss Blue

    this stupid (and you very well may be!), this graph illustrates as well as anything why Alzheimer's (and other) diseases aren't being cured . .. .

    Typically about 40% of NIH grant applications are worth funding, we're currently doing about 1/3rd of that.

    Meaning that progress towards curing disease * could * be progressing 3x faster than it is . ..  

    •  If they develop a strategy with focus (0+ / 0-)

      it could happen.  Set a deadline.

      Not every research proposal is worthy of funding, some ideas are interesting, but irrelevant to find a cure or prevention.  The great days of big NIH funding are past; party's over for now and its time to start focusing on a goal and deadline.

      It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

      by Betty Pinson on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 11:00:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A goal and deadline quite frankly aren't (0+ / 0-)

        how science works.

        That's a really bad idea.

        Ergo, maybe you can interest the Gates Foundation to go down that route.

        •  Yes it is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite

          I've been involved in research advocacy for over a decade.  The more money you throw at it, the more directions they go in, with no distinct plan or strategy.

          In breast cancer, we're making them focus on two things - development of a preventive vaccine and finding a way to stop metastasis.

          Put the money on those goals until its done, period.

          It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

          by Betty Pinson on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 11:12:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This illustrates what I am talking about (0+ / 0-)
            I've been involved in research advocacy for over a decade.
            but neither goal has been realized, right?

            And that is because there is no underlying scientific foundation to reach those goals.  

            For example, no one really understands metastasis well enough to design treatments to stop it.  Hence the need for open ended, curiosity driven research to try to figure that out.

            That model worked spectacularly for several decades after WW2 and there is no reason to abandon it now.

            •  The goals were set in 2010 (0+ / 0-)

              after research advocates worked with the research community for decades.  

              Half the battle is convincing the research community they need to narrow their focus to areas that can have the most impact.  It is getting done, check out the Artemis Project.

              It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

              by Betty Pinson on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 11:23:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  For some context, George W. Bush appointed (0+ / 0-)

            one of his Fundy Friends to head the NCI a decade ago, who came up with this:

            Realistic goal: End suffering, death from cancer by 2015

            That was really really crazy then, and looks even more idiotic now.  Something like Nixon's 5 year war on cancer.

            Nope, it's a long hard slog. Cry wolf too many times and the endeavor will lose all support.

            •  The goal isn't specific enough (0+ / 0-)

              that's why it fails.  Setting a deadline while offering no parameters or no strategic plan is the problem.  

              It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

              by Betty Pinson on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 11:25:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But you can't accomplish the goals (0+ / 0-)

                you stated without having a scientific foundation.

                And science is not a cut and dried predictable enterprise.  

                There is no way of knowing where the critical advance will come from to achieve either of the goals you seek.

                So, if you wish to raise private money to pursue those goals, that is absolutely fantastic, have at it!

                OTOH, public money - e.g., the NIH - should not go down that route.  A top down, dictatorial approach is completely inimical to scientific progress.  Why kill the golden goose?

                •  Read the link for Artemis Project (0+ / 0-)

                  and follow the links contained therein.  There is a scientific strategy one that takes a systematic approach so researchers aren't chasing blindly to dead ends, but looking at the big picture and narrowing down the possible paths to follow.

                  There's also funding that has been granted for these pilot projects. There are quite a few scientists already collaborating on the project.  We also helped create the DoD BCRP which is another source of focused funding.  

                  The next startup will be the plan for studying metastasis. It's getting underway now.

                  It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

                  by Betty Pinson on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 12:05:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site