Germany's "National Decade Against Post-Infectious Diseases"

Chandelier said:
I'm thinking out loud.


@forestglip has been in contact with Dr. Schilling before:

She's a neurologist.
Click to expand...
I'm going through Dr Schilling's publication list on Google Scholar.
I'll add interesting papers to this post as I go.

Reduced ATP-to-phosphocreatine ratios in neuropsychiatric post-COVID condition: Evidence from 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy, 2025, Schilling+

Could she be the needed bridge to fund SequenceME?

Genome-wide association analyses of borderline personality disorder identify 11 loci and highlight shared risk with mental and somatic disorders, 2026, Streit et al
Streit, Fabian; Awasthi, Swapnil; Hall, Alisha S. M.; Braun, Alice; Niarchou, Maria; Marouli, Eirini; Babajide, Oladapo; Frank, Josef; Zillich, Lea; Callies, Carolin M.; Avetyan, Diana; Zillich, Eric; Naamanka, Joonas; Gonzalez, Jean; Harder, Arvid; Lu, Yi; Aherrahrou, Zouhair; Ahmad, Zain-Ul-Abideen; Ask, Helga; Batzler, Anthony; Benros, Michael E.; Brand-de Wilde, Odette M.; Brunak, Søren; Bruun, Mie T.; Christoffersen, Lea A. N.; Colodro-Conde, Lucía; Coombes, Brandon J.; Corfield, Elizabeth C.; Dahmen, Norbert; Didriksen, Maria; Dinh, Khoa M.; Djurovic, Srdjan; Dowsett, Joseph; Drange, Ole Kristian; Dukal, Helene; Edelmann, Susanne; Erikstrup, Christian; Espinola, Mariana K.; Fassbinder, Eva; Faucon, Annika; Ferreira de Sá, Diana S.; Foo, Jerome C.; Gilles, Maria; Gutiérrez-Zotes, Alfonso; Hansen, Thomas F.; Haraldsson, Magnus; Harper, R. Patrick; Havdahl, Alexandra; Heilbronner, Urs; Herms, Stefan; Hjalgrim, Henrik; Hübel, Christopher; Jacob, Gitta A.; Aagaard, Bitten; Jorgensen, Anders; Jungkunz, Martin; Kleindienst, Nikolaus; Knoblich, Nora; Koglin, Stefanie; Kraft, Julia; Krebs, Kristi; Lee, Christopher W.; Lin, Yuhao; Lis, Stefanie; Lisoway, Amanda; Malogiannis, Ioannis A.; Martinsen, Amy; Maslahati, Tolou; Merz, Katharina; Meyer-Lindenberg, Andreas; Mikkelsen, Susan; Mikkelsen, Christina; Mobascher, Arian; Muntané, Gerard; Oddsson, Asmundur; Ostrowski, Sisse R.; Palviainen, Teemu; Pedersen, Ole B. V.; Pedersen, Geir; Quinn, Liam; Reinhard, Matthias A.; Ruths, Florian A.; Schott, Björn H.; Schredl, Michael; Schwarz, Emanuel; Schwarze, Cornelia E.; Schwinn, Michael; Send, Tabea Sarah; Sigurdsson, Engilbert; Simon-Keller, Katja; Skuladottir, Astros T.; Soler, Joaquim; Sonley, Anne; Sørensen, Erik; Stefansson, Hreinn; Straub, Peter; Suvisaari, Jaana; Tesli, Martin; Træholt, Jacob; Ullum, Henrik; Völker, Maja P.; Walters, G. Bragi; Wang, Rujia; Witt, Christian C.; Zarbock, Gerhard; Zill, Peter; Zwart, John-Anker; Andreassen, Ole A.; Arntz, Arnoud; Biernacka, Joanna M.; Bohus, Martin; Breen, Gerome; Chapman, Alexander L.; Cichon, Sven; Davis, Lea K.; Deuschle, Michael; Euler, Sebastian; Herpertz, Sabine C.; Hummelen, Benjamin; Jobst, Andrea; Kaprio, Jaakko; Kennedy, James L.; Lehto, Kelli; Lieb, Klaus; Martorell, Lourdes; McMain, Shelley; Musil, Richard; Nieratschker, Vanessa; Nöthen, Markus M.; Padberg, Frank; Palotie, Aarno; Pascual, Juan C.; Perroud, Nader; Ramos-Quiroga, Josep A.; Reichborn-Kjennerud, Ted; Ribases, Marta; Roepke, Stefan; Rujescu, Dan; Sanchez-Roige, Sandra; Schilling, Claudia; Schmahl, Christian; Stefansson, Kari; Thorgeirsson, Thorgeir E.; Turecki, Gustavo; Vilella, Elisabet; Werge, Thomas; Winsvold, Bendik S.; Wrege, Johannes; Rietschel, Marcella; Ripke, Stephan; Witt, Stephanie H.

Abstract
Abstract Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe mental health condition influenced by environmental risk factors (for example, interpersonal trauma) and genetic factors. We conducted the largest genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analysis of BPD so far, with a discovery sample of 12,339 cases and 1,041,717 controls, and a replication study of 685 cases and 107,750 controls (all participants of European ancestry). We identified 11 independent associated genomic loci and 9 risk genes in gene-based analyses. We observed a single-nucleotide polymorphism heritability of 17.3% and derived polygenic scores (PGS) that predicted 4.6% of the phenotypic variance in BPD on the liability scale. BPD showed the strongest positive genetic correlations with GWAS of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, antisocial behavior, and measures of suicide and self-harm. Phenome-wide analyses in Vanderbilt University Medical Center Biobank and UK Biobank using BPD-PGS confirmed these associations and also identified associations with other medical conditions, including obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes. These analyses highlight BPD as a polygenic disorder, with the genetic risk showing substantial overlap with psychiatric and physical health conditions.

Web | DOI | PMC | PDF | Nature Genetics

Genome-wide association studies identify 77 loci for suicidality and provide novel biological insights, 2025, Colbert et al
Colbert, Sarah MC; Koromina, Maria; Hatoum, Alexander S; Stephenson, Mallory; Edwards, Alexis C; Johnson, Emma C; Qin, Xuejun; Shabalin, Andrey A; Ito, Lucas T; O’Connell, Kevin S; Harder, Arvid; Hjerling-Leffler, Jens; Kim, Min Ji; Otsuka, Ikuo; Vilar-Ribó, Laura; Agrawal, Arpana; Alda, Martin; Alfredsson, Lars; Aliev, Fazil; Andlauer, Till FM; Arango, Celso; Arntz, Arnoud; Awasthi, Swapnil; Ayinde, Olatunde O; Bacanu, Silviu-Alin; Barr, Peter B; Bau, Claiton HD; Baune, Bernhard T; Beckham, Jean C; Bejan, Cosmin A; Belangero, Sintia; Berger, Klaus; Biernacka, Joanna M; Bogdan, Ryan; Boomsma, Dorret I; Børglum, Anders D; Bourassa, Kyle J; Braff, David L; Braun, Alice; Bressan, Rodrigo A; Brueckl, Tanja M; Budde, Monika; Cabrera-Mendoza, Brenda; Carpiniello, Bernardo; Ceja, Zuriel; Cervilla, Jorge A; Chang, Chiao-Erh; Chaumette, Boris; Cheon, Myeong Jae; Cichon, Sven; Coleman, Jonathan RI; Coon, Hilary; Copeland, William E; Czamara, Darina; Dalkner, Nina; Dannlowski, Udo; David, Friederike S; Demontis, Ditte; Di Florio, Arianna; Diaconu, Carmen C; Dick, Danielle M; Dikeos, Dimitris; Djurovic, Srdjan; Edenberg, Howard J; Erlangsen, Annette; Euler, Sebastian; Falkai, Peter; Fanelli, Giuseppe; Fellendorf, Frederike T; Ferentinos, Panagiotis; Fernandez-Aranda, Fernando; Forstner, Andreas J; Frei, Oleksandr; Fries, Gabriel R; Fullerton, Janice M; Gaine, Marie E; Galfalvy, Hanga C; Galimberti, Marco; Garcia-Aymerich, Judith; Garrett, Melanie E; Gawlik, Micha; Gelernter, Joel; Gordon-Smith, Katherine; Gorelik, Aaron J; Gorwood, Philip; Grabe, Hans J; Green, Melissa J; Grigoroiu-Serbanescu, Maria; Gupta, Priya; Gutiérrez, Blanca; Guzman-Parra, Jose; Han, Seonggyun; Haram, Marit; Hauser, Elizabeth R; Heilbronner, Urs; Herpertz, Sabine C; Herrera-Imbroda, Jesús; Hesselbrock, Victor M; Hishimoto, Akitoyo; Holla, Bharath; Izotova, Anastasia; Jang, Yoonjeong; Jimenez-Murcia, Susana; Jones, Lisa A; Jonsson, Lina; Kang, JooEun; Kang, Joon Ho; Keel, Pamela K; Kim, Jaeyoung; Kim, Dongjun; Kircher, Tilo; Kirov, George; Kraft, Julia; Kramer, John; Kranzler, Henry R; Kuo, Po-Hsiu; Kurvits, Siim; Lai, Dongbing; Lake, Marilyn T; Landén, Mikael; Lannoy, Séverine; Law, Matthew H; Lee, Byung-Chul; Lee, Young Kee; Lehto, Kelli; Levey, Daniel F; Lewis, Cathryn M; Li, Qingqin S; Liao, Calwing; Lind, Penelope A; Lochner, Christine; Lori, Adriana; Maes, Hermine HM; Mahadevan, Jayant; Manchia, Mirko; Mars, Becky; Martin, Nicholas G; Martorell, Lourdes; McIntosh, Andrew M; McMain, Shelley F; McQuillin, Andrew; Medland, Sarah E; Mitchell, Philip B; Molina, Esther; Monson, Eric T; Mufford, Mary S; Muntané, Gerard; Musil, Richard; Myung, Woojae; Neagu, Ana Iulia; Nielsen, Trine T; Nöthen, Markus M; Nunez, Yaira Z; Nurnberger, John I; Okazaki, Satoshi; Olsen, Catherine M; Ophoff, Roel A; Owen, Michael J; Pan, Pedro M; Papiol, Sergi; Pascual, Juan C; Patrinos, George P; Pawlak, Joanna M; Penninx, Brenda WJH; Pérez-Gutiérrez, Ana M; Perroud, Nader; Peterson, Roseann E; Pisanu, Claudia; Pistis, Giorgio; Porjesz, Bernice; Posthuma, Danielle; Powers, Abigail; Preisig, Martin; Purushottam, Meera; Reif, Andreas; Reininghaus, Eva Z; Rentería, Miguel E; Ripke, Stephan; Ripperger, Michael A; Rivera, Margarita; Roberts, Emily K; Roberts, Gloria; Rødevand, Linn; Roepke, Stefan; Rovaris, Diego L; Salum, Giovanni A; Sanders, Alan R; Santoro, Marcos L; Sawyers, Chelsea; Scherer, Stephen W; Schilling, Claudia; Schmahl, Christian; Schofield, Peter R; Schulze, Thomas G; Scott, Laura J; Serretti, Alessandro; Shadrin, Alexey; Shirai, Toshiyuki; Smeland, Olav B; Smoller, Jordan W; Sokolowski, Marcus; Sonuga-Barke, Edmund J; Squassina, Alessio; Starnawska, Anna; Steen, Nils Eiel; Stein, Dan J; Stein, Frederike; Stein, Murray B; Streit, Fabian; Sud, Reeteka; Sullivan, Patrick F; Terao, Chikashi; Toma, Claudio; Tondo, Leonardo; Turecki, Gustavo; Uher, Rudolf; Ursano, Robert J; Van der Auwera, Sandra; Vawter, Marquis P; Paska, Alja Videtic; Vilella, Elisabet; Vincent, John B; Viswanath, Biju; Vladimirov, Vladimir; Wasserman, Danuta E; Weickert, Thomas W; Whiteman, David C; Willour, Virginia L; Wiström, Erik D; Witt, Stephanie H; Won, Hong-Hee; Wootton, Robyn E; Zai, Clement C; Zhang, Jian; Zillich, Lea; Andreassen, Ole A; Palmer, Abraham A; Sanchez-Roige, Sandra; Mann, J John; Kimbrel, Nathan A; Ashley-Koch, Allison E; Ruderfer, Douglas M; Docherty, Anna R; Mullins, Niamh

Abstract
Suicidality contributes substantially to global morbidity and mortality, yet despite its heritability, its biological etiology remains largely elusive. We conducted multi-ancestry genome-wide association study meta-analyses of suicidal ideation (259,747 cases), suicide attempt (64,993 cases), suicide death (9,197 cases), and suicidal behavior (suicide attempt/ death, 75,300 cases), across 54 cohorts (e.g., the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Million Veteran Program, UK Biobank). We identified 77 significant loci across meta-analyses, including 59 previously unreported for suicidality. SNP-based heritability ranged from 2.0-6.7% and there were strong, yet incomplete, genetic correlations between suicidality phenotypes (0.70-0.88). Fine-mapping prioritized putative causal SNPs and 20 credible genes. Enrichment analyses implicated synaptic pathways and neuronal populations predominantly in subcortical brain regions (e.g., amygdala excitatory, medium spiny, hippocampal CA1-3). Together, these findings establish suicidality as a polygenic set of traits with both shared and distinct genetic influences, providing a foundation for future studies of suicide biology and etiology.

Web | DOI | PMC | PDF | medRxiv

Persistent symptoms and clinical findings in adults with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19... in the second year after acute infection

Development of a symptom-based severity score anchored to health-related quality of life LC within population-based EPILOC cohorts, 2026, Peter et al.

Circulating mitochondrial and cellular damage markers in [LC]: Links to cognitive function, psychological distress, and inflammation, 2026, Matits+

Association of kynurenine metabolites with cognitive and psychological symptoms in post COVID-19 condition: A case-control study, 2026, Matits et al

Study Protocol (machine translation):
Multimodal characterization of brain function and cerebral perfusion, neuronal metabolism, and genetic risk architecture
Grant reference number: 01EJ2407A
Funding amount: EUR 720,879
Funding period: 2024–2027
Principal investigator: Dr Claudia Schilling
Address:
Central Institute of Mental Health
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy
Working Group on Neuropsychiatric SleepDisorders—Sleep Laboratory
J5
68159 Mannheim
Germany

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a severe neuroimmunological disorder that often results in a high degree of physical and psychological disability. The overall aim of the project is to characterize the biological mechanisms associated with brain dysfunction in ME/CFS, including cognitive impairment, fatigue, headaches, sleep disturbances, and hypersensitivity to sensory stimuli.

The activity of specific neuronal networks during sleep may serve as a “window into brain function.” Selected sleep features, such as sleep spindles, reflect the functional integrity of neuronal networks involved in important processes including memory formation, sleep stabilization, and the processing of sensory stimuli. Dysfunction in these networks will be related to multimodal imaging and biochemical assessments of vascular-bed function. These investigations will be complemented by the determination of polygenic risk profiles.

This approach will enable the characterization of biological mechanisms at the systems level and the identification of individual-level predictors of ME/CFS, thereby providing a basis for future personalized treatment strategies. The objective of the Central Institute of Mental Health (ZI) is to investigate sleep spindles as a correlate of thalamocortical network function and to perform a multimodal characterization of brain function, cerebral blood flow, and neuronal metabolism in relation to the genetic risk architecture for vascular diseases.

The longitudinal approach will also examine whether clinically significant changes are accompanied by measurable pathophysiological correlates. The project is part of the “SLEEP-NEURO-PATH” research consortium, which is coordinated by the Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim and comprises a total of three project partners.
 
Last edited:
fst said:
That's really a shame and what I have been afraid of. Money's there but now we're lacking the (interested) researchers. Still somewhat hopeful that there will be a 'bootstrapping' process in the first years.
Click to expand...
This is a systematically repressed research area, it won't expand itself without some effort. Clearly the effort for that is missing.

I can't accept that as an excuse. This illness has been denied, mocked, discriminated, sabotaged and treated like a freak sideshow, of course it's difficult to find researchers with good proposals. This is part of the mission that those agencies have to deal with, and if they fail at it it's entirely their fault. And it's not overly cynical to assume that for a lot of people responsible for it, this is the ideal scenario.
 
rvallee said:
This is a systematically repressed research area, it won't expand itself without some effort. Clearly the effort for that is missing.

I can't accept that as an excuse. This illness has been denied, mocked, discriminated, sabotaged and treated like a freak sideshow, of course it's difficult to find researchers with good proposals. This is part of the mission that those agencies have to deal with, and if they fail at it it's entirely their fault. And it's not overly cynical to assume that for a lot of people responsible for it, this is the ideal scenario.
Click to expand...
They should and could have seen the problem coming. S4ME has been discussing the issue with getting researchers involved in the current environment and what its going to take for a long time. It is THE problem, you can't just make the funding available and there is a mass of high quality researchers ready to go, the area has been starved of funding for half a century they all left and went onto other things long ago.
 
Last edited:
the problem this year is not only that not enough researchers applied to the one funding guideline BMFTR did, but rather that they only did ONE funding guideline this year with a budget of 26 million € -and the process of deciding which projects they will fund will take place until beginning of 2027. So they can’t spend that money this year. then there is the 5 million € project which they already spent.

That’s why most of the money this year could go to waste. There are ways to avoid that so we‘re all hoping it won’t happen- but right now nothing is sure.
 
BrightCandle said:
They should and could have seen the problem coming. S4ME has been discussing the issue with getting researchers involved in the current environment and what its going to take for a long time. It is THE problem, you can't just make the funding available and there is a mass of high quality researchers ready to go, the area has been starved of funding for half a century they all left and went onto other things long ago.
Click to expand...
Big part of the problem is the fact that such initiatives often insist on awarding their funding only to domestic researchers, even though there would often be transnational research agreements in place that are intended to facilitate collaboration with foreign researchers.

It certainly isn't the case right now that there is way more money around than it could be invested reasonably somewhere around the world. But it is problematic if e.g. around 50% of all research money for ME is available only inside Germany while maybe 10% of all high quality researchers are working there. The percentages are obviously completely inaccurate estimates, but I hope they illustrate my point.

Just right now at this moment I'd argue it would be possible to donate 2 Millions to Flugge/Mella, 10 Millions to Ponting and his team, spend 5 more millions in the Netherlands and another 10 in the U.S. without wasting too much of it. That would be 27 Million and therefore more than what is left of the "Dekade" money for this year.
 
From NichtGenesen on Twitter.

Machine Translation:
This is not a research gap. This is a predictable funding gap!

Germany excels in basic research. However, precisely where these findings could be translated into medications for ME/CFS and Long COVID, institutional buck-passing begins.

SPRIND is tasked with identifying, validating, and funding breakthrough innovations. Yet, according to available information, innovative drug candidates for ME/CFS and Long COVID have not been included. Referring to the National Decade does not solve the problem: the current funding guidelines of the Decade generally exclude commercial enterprises from applying—except in very limited special cases; otherwise, they can only participate as subcontractors.

Furthermore, SPRIND is well capable of mobilizing funds for high-risk drug development: 68.6 million euros in budgetary funds were allocated to the SPRIND subsidiary PRInnovation, and 48.9 million euros to BiconY. Exactly these types of entrepreneurial structures were created to move drug candidates toward clinical application.

At the same time, the Federal Government itself states that pharmaceutical research is explicitly to be part of the National Decade, that clinical trials are to be specifically funded, and that biomedical research is to be the central focus.

This raises a necessary question: who actually finances the critical step between excellent German basic research and a medication for patients?

SPRIND refers to the Research Decade.The Research Decade is largely closed to companies.And the patients continue to wait.

We therefore wish to know the scientific and funding-policy criteria used by SPRIND to evaluate the ME/CFS and Long COVID projects in question. This is precisely why a request for access to information was filed. To date, this request has been denied by both SPRIND and the BMFTR; appeals against these decisions are currently pending.

A Research Decade that promises "translation" must not stop exactly where research could become a medication.

Furthermore, a federal agency for breakthrough innovation must not act as a mere referral service when it comes to potentially innovative drug candidates for a severely underserved patient group. Meanwhile, funds allocated for the Research Decade remain unused, and non-transferable budgetary funds lapse at the end of the year. It is difficult to justify that funds are available, yet translationally relevant projects cannot find a suitable funding pathway.

We do not need more empty rhetoric regarding translation. We need a robust pathway from the laboratory to the medication.
Click to expand...
 
Chandelier said:
From NichtGenesen on Twitter. Machine Translation:
Click to expand...

Initially I thought the funding impasse might be for the best until resolving the stand-off between incompatible psycho-social pursuit and a bio-medical continuum which may not mind demographic data-sets for psycho-social context - but...

Now I am reminded of the initial outcry from people who cannot wait for research to be sequenced before a medicine is trialled. There was an example provided of some rigorous format for assessing applications. And I recall some mandate for preliminary research of the problem to narrow down targets and establish guauges before researching drugs.

I suppose the outcry in January was brewing to date, but the initial stage of the Decade planned to sequence this "robust pathway from laboratory to medication". Is NichtGenesen trying to skip this sequence? It did not reference the sequence in question. Is Sprin-D just agreeing with Decade sequencing for first things first, or is something being concealed when the disclosure stops? @PageofME might you have heard on the forums what clinical trial was being promoted before the Decade got ready, and was it soundly based?

In january:
OrganicChilli said:
www.abgeordnetenwatch.de

Herr Oest, werden Sie sich im Forschungsausschuss aktiv für eine deutliche Erhöhung der ME/CFS-Forschungsgelder einsetzen – nicht nur mit Worten, sondern mit echter Hoffnung für uns Betroffene? | Frage an Florian Oest (CDU)

Diese Frage wurde Florian Oest (CDU) am 10.11.2025 auf abgeordnetenwatch.de gestellt. Lesen Sie hier die Antwort!
www.abgeordnetenwatch.de www.abgeordnetenwatch.de

The German X ME/CFS bubble is very upset about the lack of funding for clinical trials.
Click to expand...
With a view to concrete implementation, the Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space is working at full speed on the conceptual aspects. We want to establish a close network between science, research, and industry and continuously expand it. At the beginning of the decade, the focus will be on establishing the scientific foundations. This includes, among other things:

What biological mechanisms lead to the development of long-lasting symptoms from an infection? Which biomarkers or diagnostic parameters are suitable for differentiating between different disease courses or for better assessing the severity? Equally important is the development and strengthening of reliable clinical trial structures so that research results become more comparable and robust in the future. Questions of prevention are also coming into focus, such as which individual or immunological risk factors could promote the development of post-infectious diseases.

This strategic focus creates the scientific foundation upon which future therapeutic developments can build. For this reason, the initial research funding guidelines will not aim to promote individual therapies or specific drug candidates. This is not an exclusion of particular methodological or therapeutic ideas, but rather a necessary sequence: robust evidence first, followed by development perspectives.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, I am not sure that I would agree with Sprin-D and other stakeholders if I knew what the transfer of intellectual property rights entailed and if it is monetising what for who, as proposed in the Sprin-D magazine last year upon a coalition:

Intellectual Property:
The IP transfer from scientific institutions to spin-offs

"Overall, the aim is to remove existing barriers, to make negotiation processes at universities more transparent, and to create new incentive systems. The professionalization as well as the simplification and acceleration of IP transfers are of significant importance." [so an extra budget is outlined].
Click to expand...
"Improved utilization of the existing potential of research and science for spin-offs should be promoted by the new Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space (BMFTR) as a matter of priority."

The BMFTR can and should have a direct impact on non-university research institutions. The development of the strategy ought to begin in the first 100 days of the new federal government. For the national IP strategy as announced in the coalition agreement, we recommend the following principles:
Click to expand...

NationaI IP Strategy Principles (6.3.25)

SPRIND and other key stakeholders jointly make recommendations for the transfer of intellectual property rights to research-based spin-offs as anchored in the coalition agreement.
The Federal Agency for Breakthrough Innovation
(SPRIND)

the Bundesverband Deutsche Startups e.V.
(Federal Association of German Start-ups, also known as Startup-Verband)

the Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft
(Donors’ Association for German Science)

the High-Tech Gründerfonds
(public-private venture capital investment firm, also known as HTGF)

and TransferAllianz
(TA)
welcome the fact that the new federal government has explicitly anchored the transfer of intellectual property rights (IPRs) to research-based spin-offs in the coalition agreement.

In view of the low number of spin-offs from the field of science compared to other countries and declining patent applications in Germany, there is a pressing need for a fast tracked and founder friendly IP-transfer.
Click to expand...

The planned national IP strategy serves as a framework for standardizing IP transfer conditions nationwide and making them founder-friendly. For such an IP strategy to be successful, it is necessary that the relevant ministries responsible for the universities get involved at an early stage, in addition to consulting university representatives, representatives of the transfer offices, founders and other relevant stakeholders as well.

National IP Strategy Principles:

1
Transfer via start-ups

Even today, spin-offs represent one of the most important pathways for intellectual property derived from scientific research to create socioeconomic impact. Utilizing intellectual property rights by spin-offs from scientific institutions should be firmly anchored at universities as a clear performance indicator, and financial resources should be made available by the funding bodies to this effect. In addition...

2
Consistent use of the exemptions within the EU state aid framework

With the COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2023/1315 dated June 23, 2023, the EU state aid framework was fundamentally revised and adapted to the current economic conditions in Europe. The amendments to Article 22 explicitly address the importance of spin-offs and include statements on how to determine a fair market value...

3
EU Start-up and Scale-up Strategy

In the early spin-off phase, founders work flat out and with limited resources to build up the company and fight for the favour of investors. Every additional euro that is available for these crucial processes extends the period until the next round of financing and thus directly increases the chances of success of the spin-off. Therefore…

4
Transparent contracts with standard clauses

The typical contractual components of an IP contract are similar. By providing typical regulatory content in standard clauses, it is possible to simplify and expedite the overall process, especially in the case of first-time founders lacking previous professional experience. This enables fair and transparent contract drafting, as information deficits can be reduced more quickly and valuable negotiation time can be invested in the contract components that do need to be tailored to the individual circumstances of the spin-off and the interests of the scientific institution. Approaching contract design with this mindset creates transparency and…

5
IP valuation and conclusion of the contract in 12 weeks

The speed of implementation is particularly important during the spin-off phase. A contract conclusion within 12 weeks is attainable and realistic. To achieve this, both parties must be focused on the IP negotiation . Under the basic premise that both parties conduct the negotiation with increasing the revenue potential for both sides and disclosing all value-determining factors without restriction, this is an achievable time frame….

6. Price transparency and review disclosure

The IP transfer from scientific institutions to spin-offs must be carried out in accordance with applicable laws and under customary/fair market conditions. This requires…

7. Anchoring IP transfer in all public funding guidelines with explicit relevance to transfer

So far, IP transfer has not been very well acknowledged or uniformly integrated in corresponding funding guidelines. The steering group...
Click to expand...
 
After patient organization’s outcry, BMFTR decided to focus more on clinical trials.
That’s why the first funding guideline was on development of drugs in clinical trials.

Nichtgenesen’s claims that the 44 million will go to waste at the end of the year (according to Linke) is also not based on anything -at the moment it is not clear.

I’m also not sure if Mitodicure is happy about their 3x rejection being known to the public, could be bad for their investors, in my opinion that post was totally unnecessary and harmful in some instances.
 
www.bundestag.de

Deutscher Bundestag - 29. Sitzung

www.bundestag.de www.bundestag.de

The video is in German but it contains news regarding the NDPE:

1. all the money will be spent, we don’t need to worry about parts of the 50 million € not being spent this year.
2. the next 2 funding guidelines will be a funding round for basic research and afterwards (?) a funding round for earlier phases of clinical trials (probably phase 1 or 2a but she didn’t say that) -59 million€ together (?)
3. Doro Bär says that for the first funding guideline on clinical trials there were many people who sent their funding application if i heard correctly “große Nachfrage und Überzeichnung”
 
Last edited:
Damn it. Clinical trials are a complete waste of time and resources. They take too long, are far too low quality, and there isn't even a single worthy target yet.
 
rvallee said:
Damn it. Clinical trials are a complete waste of time and resources. They take too long, are far too low quality, and there isn't even a single worthy target yet.
Click to expand...
it could be open to companies though too.
not that it makes it a lot better but maybe (just a guess) they will open that round for companies like mitodicure as well.

and I’m not sure if she said 59million€ for basic research/ pathomechanisms or for both funding guidelines ( basic research+ clinical trials)- maybe someone speaking german could double check (starts at ca. minute 50.)

someone on here suggested trialling campath, (something to do with T Cell signalling iirc) we could try selling the idea to a researcher if it’s a worthy idea.

And then there is also this, it was updated this week i guess: 35,5 Mio€ for I don’t know exactly what-

www.gesundheitsforschung-bmftr.de

Erweiterung der Datenbasis für die Forschung zu postinfektiösen Erkrankungen - BMFTR Gesundheitsforschung

www.gesundheitsforschung-bmftr.de www.gesundheitsforschung-bmftr.de
 
justlxsa said:
www.bundestag.de

Deutscher Bundestag - 29. Sitzung

www.bundestag.de www.bundestag.de

The video is in German but it contains news regarding the NDPE:

1. all the money will be spent, we don’t need to worry about parts of the 50 million € not being spent this year.
2. the next 2 funding guidelines will be a funding round for basic research and afterwards (?) a funding round for earlier phases of clinical trials (probably phase 1 or 2a but she didn’t say that) -59 million€ together (?)
3. Doro Bär says that for the first funding guideline on clinical trials there were many people who sent their funding application if i heard correctly “große Nachfrage und Überzeichnung”
Click to expand...
Very interesting, thanks for sharing.
I attached the subtitles in German.

justlxsa said:
And then there is also this, it was updated this week i guess: 35,5 Mio€ for I don’t know exactly what-

www.gesundheitsforschung-bmftr.de

Erweiterung der Datenbasis für die Forschung zu postinfektiösen Erkrankungen - BMFTR Gesundheitsforschung

www.gesundheitsforschung-bmftr.de www.gesundheitsforschung-bmftr.de
Click to expand...
Machine translation:

Expanding the Data Basis for Research on Post-Infectious Diseases​


Announcement published:
Funding period:2026–2028
Total funding:Up to EUR 35.5 million
Number of projects:2 consortia

1. Objective of the Funding Initiative​


Post-infectious diseases (PIDs) can occur after various infections and affect millions of people worldwide. The best-known examples are Long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). These diseases are highly complex and affect multiple organ systems. They can severely limit the quality of life of those affected. PIDs pose a challenge to modern medicine. Because little is known about their causes and mechanisms, these diseases currently cannot be treated effectively or cured in their chronic stages.

The National Decade Against Post-Infectious Diseases therefore aims to establish a long-term research strategy to systematically investigate causes, mechanisms, diagnostics, treatments, and approaches to prevention—with the goal of improving the outlook for patients.

2. Status of the Funding Initiative​


As a first step, the data available for research will be improved using existing patient cohorts from the NAKO Health Study and the Network of University Medicine (NUM).
 

Attachments

Machine translation:

​
Reporter (overdub): Ultimately, taxpayer money should be invested in effective approaches.​
​
Matthias Hauer (Federal Ministry of Research): Psychosomatic medicine has never been a priority, and it will not be a priority in the future either, because at the ministry, on this issue as on all others, we always base our decisions on the state of the science.​
​
Reporter (overdub): Many people affected will be pleased to hear that the money will go exclusively to biological research, not psychosomatic research.​
​


From a short 2min clip on German TV news station NTV:
www.n-tv.de

ME/CFS reißt Tausende Deutsche in völlige Erschöpfung

ME/CFS ist eine schwere postinfektiöse Erkrankung, die noch nahezu unerforscht ist. Völlige Erschöpfung und Reizüberflutung reißen Betroffene aus dem früheren Leben. Die kleinsten Aktivitäten kosten enorm viel Kraft. Ein Heilmittel gibt es bislang nicht. Doch zusätzliche Gelder für die Forschung...
www.n-tv.de www.n-tv.de

ME/CFS plunges thousands of Germans into pain and darkness
October 18, 2026

ME/CFS is a severe post-infectious disease that remains nearly unexplored. Total exhaustion and sensory overload tear those affected away from their former lives. Even the smallest activities require an enormous amount of energy. To date, there is no cure. However, additional research funding provides hope.
 
Chandelier said:
Matthias Hauer (Federal Ministry of Research): Psychosomatic medicine has never been a priority, and it will not be a priority in the future either, because at the ministry, on this issue as on all others, we always base our decisions on the state of the science.
Click to expand...
I wish I could believe this, but I absolutely don't, and it's because of a long history with a 100% perfect streak of betraying us on this front, a history that includes blatant lying about it while intending to do exactly that. Perfidy is not something that can ever be forgotten, it's simply too malicious, and it's about all we've ever had. It will take decades of a perfect streak of success before any trust is deserved.

Because we know for a fact that for a lot of people involved here it's the only priority, and they will never let go of it. It's impossible to let go of millions of skeletons in a closet that would need to be so giant to hold them all off it would have its own weather system.
 
I’m relatively optimistic.
In the past 6 years since starting research, at least with ME/CFS research, BMFTR hasn’t funded a single psychosomatic/ psychological project. All funds went to biomedical research.

LongCovid on the other hand was mixed, most funds were biomedical, some psychological/ psychosomatic.

There is a lot of pressure on them from media, Bundestag and patient organizations to deliver, so I’d be personally very surprised if more than 5% of funds -in this legislation period at least- went into that sort of category.

I think the bigger problem will be that the money will not be spent on building research infrastructure, that there will be too many clinical trials early on, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom