Andrew John Conovaloff quoted from an article:
> "Every year the National Institutes of Health spends $110
> annually per death resulting from AIDS, compared with
> $2 per death from stroke and $3 per death from heart
> disease."
The ratios to compare should be the research expenditures vs. the
complete disease burdens, not just the number of deaths. The disease
burden includes cost of health care, lost productivity, etc.
Focusing on deaths minimizes costs of non-fatal diseases, which
are substantial.
> ... a recent report recommended
For the hearty the complete Institute of Medicine report is at
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/records/030906130X.html
> the [NIH] use more rigorously scientific methods of priority
> setting and spending and better justify spending decisions to
> Congress and the public.
It would be good to bring these particular "justifications" out into
the daylight.
I wonder what the funding amounts would be if they were based on the
burdens of each disease? Just as the cost of having PD has been
calculated, so the same figures would have to be obtained for all
the other diseases. No small task - for example, the National
Organization of Rare Diseases lists over 5000 diseases! - but not
impossible. That is the only way I see to minimize politics in the
funding decisions.
Joe Bruman wrote:
> NIH can always pull the scientific wool over Congressional eyes-
> they can tag almost whatever they like as PD-related, if that's
> what you want to hear.
Which is what, according to a forthcoming report funded by PAN, they
did.
In addition, I've heard from the head of one research lab (non-PD)
that researchers tend to go where the money is, and some may word
their grant proposals accordingly even if there is only a remote
relationship ("...and this will benefit sufferers of Parkinson's
disease...") while pursuing their own particular interests.
Phil Tompkins
Hoboken NJ
age 60/dx 1990
