 |
 |
I appreciated Joan's comments regarding the funding of PD research. Although I have done reasonably well with respect to keeping my research funded I must comment that, in general, the funding of biomedical research across the board suffers from the fact that funds most often go to projects that are repeats of repeats of repeats. It would be easy, for example (AND THIS IS JUST OFFERED AS AN EXAMPLE), to get funded to study the effects of L-dopa in PD. Of course that's a well known area. Simemet is an old drug. But the outcome of such a study is certain. No mater what aspect of L-dopa one looks at, such a project will generate data in support of its use. This is, in funding terms, a low risk study. On the other hand, studying a novel approach is regarded as a high-risk study: the results would not be well known in advance. Guess which study will be funded? Until the public realize that they need to become informed consumors of expensive and potentially valuable research services being rendered, this trend will go on for a very long time. The major question one should ask regarding a research project should probably be: What's new here? Jeffrey Tosk, Ph.D. ([log in to unmask]) Director, Parkinson's Research Center