 |
 |
Charles T. Meyer, M.D. wrote: > The real issue is how did it happen that PD research got so under > funded and to make sure it doesn't happen again to us or another > "disease group". My worry is what power to change things will this > group have. Will it be merely a group to be used to pacify the stir > in congress about i.e. earmarking etc. or will it be listened to in > some meaningful way. I gather from the writeup of the NIH 9/23/98 meeting on public participation (http://www.nih.gov/news/NIH-Record/10_20_98/story01.htm) that COPR is supposed to provide input to the priority setting process. There are indications some of the participants at that meeting were interested in improving the process itself. Also, I see references to existing channels of public input -- e.g., advisory boards, public liaison offices -- that we might use or use better. Phil Tompkins