Rita,

I think that P.A.N. can help you.  They are at 1-800-850-4726.  Their
November , 1998 issue of Action Report mentions a gap between the CLAIMED
funding according to the NIH, and the ACTUAL funding for PD-focused
research, according to a scientific panel which PAN seems to have asked
to review the so-called "Parkinsonbs' grants the NIH was including in an
artificially inflated total.

This may not have any parallel in another disease funding area at the
NIH.--I don't know of any other investigation of the NIH by a panel of
scientists, to assess the truth-in-reporting about grant totals for
research.
So there is a huge gap between the &37.4 million dollars funded and the
$97 million claimed to have been funded by the NIH.  And an even slightly
 reater gap when the $100 million Udall authorization, STILL UNFUNDED, is
considered.

Ivan
^^^^^^  WARM GREETINGS  FROM  ^^^^^^^^^^^^  :-)
 Ivan Suzman        49/39/36       [log in to unmask]   :-)
 Portland, Maine   land of lighthouses   35   deg. F   :-)grey
********************************************************************

On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 05:48:47 EST [log in to unmask] writes:
>I am posting this question for the third time, because the topic of
>NIH
>funding has reappeared and no one has answered my post the first two
>times.......
>
>Has the funding for any other disease been broken down into
>"non-disease
>related funding" vs. "disease related funding"?
>
>My point in asking this question is to verify the fact that we have a
>valid
>argument when we question the NIH $$$'s.
>
>Is this a typical breakdown of basic research vs. applied research
>that is
>used at NIH?
>
>I don't enjoy reposting the same question multiple times, but I do
>think this
>issue needs an explanation as it applies to other disease related
>research
>programs.
>
>Rita Weeks
>Lincoln, NE
>