 |
 |
Arthur Hirsch wrote: > But just as the scientists say that they know science better, are > they also able to claim that they know politics and economics > better too? [snip] .... the military spends lots of money and > various of its programs are under scrutiny by the Congress. > Whether the military or the Congress is the better judge of how to > spend the money, it is the Congress that is ultimately responsible > for the expense. Hence Congress sets goals for the military, > appropriates money for military programs, and monitors the progress > toward the goals. A very important point. It's like with my mechanic. He tells me what's wrong with the car, but it's my decision whether and what to fix. We need to remember that the NIH does not serve science, it serves the taxpayers. I found on the web the following articles which relate to this topic. http://www.nsf.gov/home/nsb/document.htm Click on "Government Funding of Scientific Research". Article iscusses the historical reasons for government funding, the need for inter-agency coordination, and the need for a better way to set priorities. http://www.the-scientist.library.upenn.edu/yr1998/mar/agnew_p1_980330 .html (Not Spiro.) Article on the effect of disease advocacy groups in stimulating Congress to rethink NIH priority setting, with Varmus's response. Sen. Frist (M.D.) is drafting an NIH reauthorization bill. Rep. Istook is trying to determine costs of diseases as a basis for funding levels. Includes a table of NIH allocations for diseases. http://www.nih.gov/news/ResPriority/Priority.html The NIH point of view. Good background on this issue. An entire booklet's worth. http://www.nih/gov ... I lost the specific references, but its the NIH testimonies before the House Subcommittee on HHS. Interestingly there are prominent references to PD. Is it their way of saying "Yeah yeah we're doing it, see? Now leave us alone"? Phil Tompkins Hoboken NJ 60/9