Are the right research projects being funded?

This is what I posted on another cancer (not Blc) about this article:

Thank you for noting the NYT article on NIH funding. I worked in the research
grant area at NIH for a number of years in my deep dark past and just have to
make some comments.


The article is right-on in many ways. BUT if it were only so easy to identify truly
innovative research. 90% of research scientists will insist that their proposals are
truly innovative, ground breaking, absolutely necessary. And, as you can imagine,
most are not. It is relatively easy to identify many that are mundane, and several
mentioned in the article are very typical of that kind.


Imagine that you are reviewing 200 grant proposals for a limited pot of money as a
scientist working on a review panel for NIH. About 10% can be disapproved off the
bat because they are so flawed that there is no chance of a meaningful result, even
if the money is awarded. About half are not "fatally flawed" but do not show innovation
or promise of anything new or especially significant. These are approved, but with low
priority and are unlikely to meet the funding area.


Now you are faced with a still large number of grant applications which show some
promise....many more than the available funds will support. Some of these are continuations
of work that has been supported and are showing some results. Some are proposals
of new research efforts that follow along expected lines, that will probably have some success
and which will add significantly to what we already know. Then there are a few (more than
the money available) which are "far out."... IF they worked it would really be exciting (!!!) but
with absolutely no evidence that the idea would work out. Here is where reviewers truly
agonize and wish that SOMEHOW there was some preliminary data that indicates that at
least all the experimental animals wouldn't die in the first week!!!


OK. You now have a group of applications that you would love to see funded...and only enough
money for 25% (in a good year) of these. Do you a. continue funding ongoing research which
is closer to finding results? b. recommend funding for new projects along lines that have been
successful in the past? c. provide money to a project which COULD be truly innovative/exciting
but which the odds say is a real gamble? Remember that option "c" would mean closing down
the projects in a. or not starting b. This would probably mean that the scientist with a. would end
up letting a number of his/her technicians and graduate students go.


It ain't easy making these decisions. Articles such as this one in the NYT seem to lead us to think
that selecting "breakthrough" projects is routine. Just think of the number of treatments for cancer that have not panned out, although hopes were high at the beginning. If we could just have known
from the start which would have worked and which wouldn't, think of the money, time, lives that
could have been saved.


And the answer is not always to throw more money into the pot. Yes, more money does mean more
research...but until the science is there all the money in the world won't cure us. It will just fund more
mundane, routine stuff. Perhaps the best idea, as mentioned in the article, is a limited amount of
money set aside for risky ideas.


Sorry for the length, but need to "vent" a bit

I·m with you, especially on the emphasis on early diagnosis. It still surprises me how few people I meet who have even heard of bladder cancer, let alone know what the symptoms are. We really are the forgotten ones. Considering how common blc is,I often wonder why there are so few high profile celebrities championing our cause, particularly to raise awareness, as there must be many celebrities whose lives have been affected by blc.