 |
 |
I would like to have some facts from PAN, NPF, et al regarding the following points raised by the Varmus/Shine testimonies (brought to us, thank you, by the faithful sleuth, Margaret Tuchman): 1. V: "NIH has already improved its responsivenss to disease-specific...groups" Is data available to either prove or disprove this? 2. V: "...groups might...urge other actions such as NIH-sponsored workshop...." Isn't this coordinating function incorporated in the Udall bill for PD? On funding decision guidelines-- 1. S: "Emphasize research not likely to be pursued in the private sector" Would PD research pass such a hurdle? It strikes me that this would likely be more rare diseases that strike fewer people and therefore would be "less profitable" for private researchers. 2. S: "Examining impact of a particular research agenda on future research opportunities" I surmise that PD research WOULD meet this criteria 3 S: "Examining the burden beyond mortality of a particular disease on the US and the world's population." Again, without repeating what has been presented before on this list, I surmise that PD WOULD WITHOUT A DOUBT meet this criteria. Is there a comprehensive report available on PD-related research which breaksdown the $$$s, both private and public, spent annually say for the last 5 years? Regards, Barbara Blake-Krebs [log in to unmask] to the PD think tank in cyberspace