 |
 |
[log in to unmask] wrote: > What is wrong with basic research? The problem is the way NIH has reported it. You must have seen the PAN article on NIH PD grants. NIH supplied Congressman Fred Upton with a list of 1997 PD grants. According to NIH, 40% of the grants were "direct" and 60% were "related". PAN hired neuroscientists to review the grant abstracts and classify them as to their potential benefit for PD. The reviewers determined that 34% of the research was "focused" on PD, 27% was "related", and 38% was not-related to PD at all, that is, unlikely to have any benefit, either directly or indirectly, toward understanding, managing or curing PD. Here are some extreme examples of the grants that were reported as PD-related but were found to be totally in the not-related category (ID number, investigator, title): R01DA02326 Konetsky, Drugs of Abuse and Brain Stimulation Reward. R01DA07304 Thayer, HIV-1 Neurotoxicity: Mechanism and Modulation by Opioids. R01NS33909 Greenwald, C Elegans Model for Alzheimers Disease. Phil Tompkins