 |
 |
Rita Weeks wrote: > What I don't understand is how we can "object" to the distribution > as it now exists if we do not know that the distribution > (related/vs. non related) of funds for other disease groups. Can we see whether any other disease groups have audited research funding in their areas the way PAN has for PD and whether they came up with similar findings? The following remarks in the L.A. Times article by Dr. Greenberg posted by Mary Yost support Rita's point: > Most of the tabulations prepared by NIH are bureaucratic hokum, > dished up to satisfy government requirements for labels on > spending. While some research is focused on specific diseases, NIH > puts most of its money into basic research that's relevant to > multiple failings of the human body. And to ultimately placate disease advocacy groups? Regarding basic vs. disease-specific research, why can't the NIH simply explain where and why basic research is needed rather than give us a snow job? Do they think we wouldn't understand more than their "simplified" version? Or is it now too embarrassing to admit that they have been doing this all along? A question for the Council of Public Representatives to ask. Phil Tompkins Hoboken NJ age 60/dx 1990