 |
 |
Rita, I think that P.A.N. can help you. They are at 1-800-850-4726. Their November , 1998 issue of Action Report mentions a gap between the CLAIMED funding according to the NIH, and the ACTUAL funding for PD-focused research, according to a scientific panel which PAN seems to have asked to review the so-called "Parkinsonbs' grants the NIH was including in an artificially inflated total. This may not have any parallel in another disease funding area at the NIH.--I don't know of any other investigation of the NIH by a panel of scientists, to assess the truth-in-reporting about grant totals for research. So there is a huge gap between the &37.4 million dollars funded and the $97 million claimed to have been funded by the NIH. And an even slightly reater gap when the $100 million Udall authorization, STILL UNFUNDED, is considered. Ivan ^^^^^^ WARM GREETINGS FROM ^^^^^^^^^^^^ :-) Ivan Suzman 49/39/36 [log in to unmask] :-) Portland, Maine land of lighthouses 35 deg. F :-)grey ******************************************************************** On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 05:48:47 EST [log in to unmask] writes: >I am posting this question for the third time, because the topic of >NIH >funding has reappeared and no one has answered my post the first two >times....... > >Has the funding for any other disease been broken down into >"non-disease >related funding" vs. "disease related funding"? > >My point in asking this question is to verify the fact that we have a >valid >argument when we question the NIH $$$'s. > >Is this a typical breakdown of basic research vs. applied research >that is >used at NIH? > >I don't enjoy reposting the same question multiple times, but I do >think this >issue needs an explanation as it applies to other disease related >research >programs. > >Rita Weeks >Lincoln, NE >