 |
 |
Is there a better way to administer NIH funding of research than constant competitive wrangling and multiple bills coming out of Congress? Maybe. Maybe not. The point is do not accept the anti-earmarking arguments at face value. Too much earmarking can lead to waste and poor science when special interests groups wield an inordinate amount of power. However, leaving all of the critical decisions on health research spending to the scientific boards and administrators at NIH has its own drawbacks. Those involved with the NIH have their own agenda. They sometimes fund studies which are a forgone conclusion in order to make sure they have successful results. This is less risky, but may not always promote the best science. Members of scientific boards have their own constituency. Top scientists who get to know other top scientists tend to fund research in a narrower range within a smaller subset of the academic and scientific elite. This can lead to conservatism. Basing NIH funding decisions purely on "the best science" may have a nice aesthetic ring to it but it does not necessarily serve the greatest public interest. If the NIH only funded "the best science" without regard to public demand would we have seen the monumental advances in AIDS research that will hopefully stem the tide of a potentially devastating worldwide plague? Those of us with Parkinson's and those who have family members with Parkinson's have every right to advocate as often and as loudly as we see fit to halt the persistance of this insidious illness. Don't sit back and accept the notion that the government and the NIH is looking out for your best interest without a reasonable amount of skepticism. Advocacy for your own self-interest may not necessarily be discreet or genteel but if you don't do it who will? How does the quote go? If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? I'm not sure I know what that means but it seems appropriate here. Regards, Ken Aidekman Fund the Research. Find the Cure.