If ME/CFS research got £1 billion, what would stop it being wasted?

Sasha

Sasha

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
From another thread:

EndME said:
For one billion dollars RECOVER yielded 0 insights precisely because just randomly collecting data doesn't seem to be a fruitful approach.
Click to expand...

RECOVER was, of course, the US NIH's research program designed to understand, treat and prevent Long Covid.

If ME/CFS research was to suddenly get a massive cash injection, what could it be done to stop it being wasted, for example on BPS nonsense or poor-quality biomedical research?
 
Sasha said:
If ME/CFS research was to suddenly get a massive cash injection, what could it be done to stop it being wasted, for example on BPS nonsense or poor-quality biomedical research?
Click to expand...

Give it all to Chris and Audrey in Edinburgh I would say.
The only thing that really matters is that you have sharp, intellectually honest, investigators.
Actually, yes, there are some other friends who obviously come to mind, but Chris could share it out a bit.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Give it all to Chris and Audrey in Edinburgh I would say.
The only thing that really matters is that you have sharp, intellectually honest, investigators.
Actually, yes, there are some other friends who obviously come to mind, but Chris could share it out a bit.
Click to expand...
If it was my billion, I would do that for sure.

But if, say, the UK government suddenly decides it's going to cough up, as opposed to some billionaire who can spend the money how they like, then are our grant-giving bodies up to the job? And if not, do we have any way of making them be so?

I can imagine a gold-rush, with all the chaos, greed and stupidity that that could involve.
 
Sasha said:
I can imagine a gold-rush, with all the chaos, greed and stupidity that that could involve.
Click to expand...

Oh, totally.

But also, there's the built-in stupidity of government. I don't mean that as an insult to any politician (well okay, perhaps a few), it's just inherent in the system.

Ministers oversee government departments they know nothing about, and as soon as they begin to get a bit of a grasp—for instance which advisers are bullshitters, and which are being controlled by their rich mates—they're moved to another portfolio.

Governments shouldn't be allowed anywhere near research of any sort. They'll always get it wrong.
 
Kitty said:
Governments shouldn't be allowed anywhere near research of any sort. They'll always get it wrong.
Click to expand...

The Government isn’t going to just hand out money to researchers. They are going to do one of two things:
  • Create a bureaucracy to hand out the money and to check if it’s being used properly. It will only be staffed with incompetent people and the checks will match the research standards of Psycho.
  • Create a bureaucracy with free reigns that is always staffed with corrupt and/or people with vested interests in not advancing the research.
 
Utsikt said:
The Government isn’t going to just hand out money to researchers. They are going to do one of two things:
  • Create a bureaucracy to hand out the money and to check if it’s being used properly. It will only be staffed with incompetent people and the checks will match the research standards of Psycho.
  • Create a bureaucracy with free reigns that is always staffed with corrupt and/or people with vested interests in not advancing the research.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Also, a government's attitude to a challenging problem is that they need to be seen to be tackling it. It doesn't matter whether the action they take has any chance of success, only that it's out of the newspaper headlines.

Grant-giving bodies aren't perfect, but at least they'd be able to weed out people who—for instance—are asking the same questions they've been pursuing since the 1980s and still think they can get a better answer by tweaking the questionnaire.
 
1) set criteria for the funding for example
- biomedical research
- no involvement of bps researchers
- include patients in priority setting/ research goals
- etc

2) choose a medical steering committee of biomedical researchers experienced in me research who can evaluate research proposals

3) choose a patient representatives committee chosen by patients
 
Likely it would be handed to a committee including both patients and researchers who will vote on whether to fund applications or not.

My dream situation would be that these are filled by people I trust, like Jonathan, Chris et al. And I think most people who are active on S4ME would have my trust as patient representatives on this hypothetical committee.
 
Setup a scientific panel of people like Jonathan and Chris and have patients chosen from this forum by vote as patient representatives. Get Sonya from AfME to help organise and chair the group. Let anyone pitch and all pitches would be openly discussed here, but that panel and patient group would be the decision makers to award grants.

This opinion is based upon the worst bias and self interest. But hey. I don’t trust the track record of other groups. They’ve wasted enough already.

Edit: lol, just seen @Yann04 was writing the same at the same time
 
Chestnut tree said:
1) set criteria for the funding for example
- biomedical research
- no involvement of bps researchers
- include patients in priority setting/ research goals
- etc

2) choose a medical steering committee of biomedical researchers experienced in me research who can evaluate research proposals

3) choose a patient representatives committee chosen by patients
Click to expand...

I don’t think it should be limited to biomed, that would create undue bias. It should, however, be limited to studies of the highest research standards. That would effectively ban 99.9% of current BPS and biomed researchers.

I hope virtually unlimited funding would entice some good researchers to join the field.
 
Trish said:
Dream on. It's never going to happen unless a billionaire with good scientific sense gets ME/CFS.
Click to expand...

I understand your pessimism here, and maybe a billion is a stretch but if, for example, DecodeME pans out and in a year or a few years after sequence we have possible biomarkets and drug targets, surely governments might see sense and invest considering how widespread post covid ME is, based on economic arguments alone?
 
V.R.T. said:
I understand your pessimism here, and maybe a billion is a stretch but if, for example, DecodeME pans out and in a year or a few years after sequence we have possible biomarkets and drug targets, surely governments might see sense and invest considering how widespread post covid ME is, based on economic arguments alone?
Click to expand...

Why? They already have effective treatments (in their opinion). Most politicians don’t care about actually making a difference, they care about being perceived as making a difference.

We would need someone like the Bernies Sanders of the US to cut through the bullshit.
 
Utsikt said:
Why? They already have effective treatments (in their opinion). Most politicians don’t care about actually making a difference, they care about being perceived as making a difference.

We would need someone like the Bernies Sanders of the US to cut through the bullshit.
Click to expand...

Except they don't have effective treatments, they have a bag of magic beans and a very nice invisible shirt.

If we have scientific proof of physical processes going awry and causing the symptoms and the opportunity to treat them the situation changes considerably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom